DABNEY 
Fiction  Ho  Defence  of  Troth. 


BAP 
DM- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/fictionnodefenceOOdabn 


. t^_*£ 


Fiction,  No  Defence  of  Truth: 


OR    A 


EEVIEW 


OF 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST, 


Reprinted  from  the  Central  Presbyterian. 


; 


RICHMOND: 

WILLIAM    II.    CLEMMITT,    PRINTER. 
1859. 


Note.— The  following  Review  is  reprinted  from  the 
'•Central  Presbyterian,"  in  which  it  appeared  first  in  weekly 
numbers.  This  is  the  apology  offered  to  the  reader,  for  the 
few  typographical  error*,  which  have  been  transferred  from  i-irivf 

the  hurried  forms  of  the  newspaper  press,  into  this  more 
permanent  publication.  The  following  Table  of  Errata  will 
enable  the  reader  to  correct  them  for  himself— 

ERRATA. 

On  Title  Page,  and  heading  of  each  page,  for  "Theodosia 
Earnest,"  read,  "Theodosia  Ernest." 

On  p.  5,  for  "role,"  read  "r<Tte." 

On  p.  5,  for  "redoutable,"  read  "redoubtable." 

On  p.  12,  for  "prosecute,"  read  "persecute." 

On  p.  12,  tor  "  Presbyterian  works,"  read  "  Presbyterian 
words." 

On  p.  22,  for  "heroines."  read  "  heroine's." 

On  p.  55,  for  "Jews,"  read  "Jew." 

On  p.  64,  for  "eklesia,"  read  "ekklesia." 

On  p.  86,  for  "breed,"  read  "Creed." 

On  p.  116,  for  "Let  us  see  Bingham,"  &c.,  read,  "Let  us 
see — Bingham  concurs,"  &c. 

On  p.  133.  for  "illustratrate,"  read  "illustrate." 

On  p.  140,  erase  the  marks  of  quotation  from  the  author's 
synopsis  of  R.  flail's  argument.     So,  on  p.  141. 

On  p.  148,  line  4,  erase  words :  "the  principles  of." 


Fiction,  No  Defence  of  Truth; 


OR   A 


REVIEW 


OF 

THEODOSIA  EARNEST. 


RICHMOND: 

CLEMM 

1859. 


EEVIEW. 


A  Friend  having  recently  urged  us 
to  read  some  of  the  remarkable  Immer- 
sionist  Novels  of  which  we  have  heard  so 
much  for  a  few  years,  we  have  procured 
a  couple,  and  perused  them  with  great 
amusement.  One  of  them  is  a  Novel  by  a 
lady,  in  which  the  heroine  marries  a  Pres- 
byterian youth,  son  of  a  sturdy  old  ruling 
elder,  adheres  to  her  close  communion  prin- 
ciples in  her  father-in-law's  house,  in  spite 
of  the  most  ruthless  persecution,  and  at 
length  by  dint  of  perseverance,  patience, 
and  the  irresistible  logic  of  an  old,  illiterate, 
negro  woman,  conquers  her  husband  and  a 
whole  batch  of  Presbyterians  including  a 
parson  to  her  own  narrow  creed.  Surely 
our  immersionist  neighbors  must  consider 
this  the  era  of  the  third  Punic  war  of  their 
spiritual  commonwealth,  their  approaching 
ultima  dies;  that  their  very  women  leave  the 
nursery  and  the  kitchen,  and  come  forth  to 


4  REVIEW   OE 

the  combat,  armed  with  their  trenchant  pens 
dipped  in  the  concentrated  gall  of  Drs. 
Carson,  Booth  and  Campbell!  Yet  the  sorry 
luck  of  the  Amazon  whose  polemic  emprize 
we  have  witnessed,  we  think,  should  be  a 
warning  to  the  rest  of  "the  Sex,"  to  abide 
by  the  spirit  of  Horace's  wise  advice  Ne 
sutor  ultra  creyidam:  "Mistress;  better  stick 
to  your  thimble."  The  paltry  style,  the 
literary  blunders,  and  the  feeble  argument 
of  this  work  which  our  gallantry  requires  us 
to  leave  nameless,  place  it  beneath  criticism. 
Next,  we  have  the  famous  Romance,  of. 
"Theodosia  Earnest  orthe  Heroine  of  Faith," 
from  the  press  of  Graves,  Marks  &  Co., 
Nashville,  Tenn.  1857.  Eighteenth  Thou- 
sand. This  is  a  work  ad  captandum  vulgus, 
badly  printed  on  mean  paper;  and  illustrated 
with  execrable  daubs  of  wood  cuts  represent- 
ingthe  absurdities  of  "baby-sprinkling-, "and 
the  contrasted  glories  of  dipping;  and  adorn- 
ed with  a  frontispiece  which  exhibits  the 
lovely  Theodosia  herself.  The  book  is  evi- 
dently gotten  up  "for  the  million."  The 
last  mentioned  picture,  at  least,  deserves  to 
be  called  "a  speaking  portrait."  While  we 
cannot  compliment  the  artist  on  having 
successfully  reproduced  the  maidenly  lovli- 
ness  which  the  "Heroine  of  Faith"  is  said 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  O 

to  have  possessed:  (inasmuch  as  the  face  is 
most  decisively  ill-favoured,)  yet  he  deserves 
the  higher  praise  of  having  accurately  em- 
bodied the  ideal  of  the  young  she-polemic 
expressed  in  the  author's  narrative.  The 
brazen  pertness,  the  vixenish  tenacity,  the 
self-conceit,  appropriate  to  the  role  which 
she  is  represented  as  playing,  are  all,  most 
truthfully  represented,  in  a  coarse  face,  be- 
dizzened  profusely  with  limp  ringlets. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  at  once  fa- 
miliarize himself  with  the  new  gospel  of  these 
polemic  fictions,  he  must  understand  that 
the  Faith  for  which  Theodosia  exhibits  her 
heroism,  is  not  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
but  faith  in  dipping.  The  author  himself 
represents  her  as  being  eminently  possessed 
of  the  former,  while  still  a  benighted  Pres- 
byterian, and  as  being  entirely  undisturbed 
in  its  exercise.  No,  henceforth  simple  faith 
on  the  Saviour  does  not  constitute  any  one 
a  moral  hero,  but  confidence  in  the  dogma- 
tism of  this  water-gospel.  And  this  is  the 
first  foretaste  of  the  impieties  with  which  the 
reader  will  be  nauseated  as  he  proceeds. 

In  a  preface,  to  a  sort  of  appendix,  con- 
tained in  the  latest  edition  (as  we  suppose 
it  to  be)  the  publisher,  Mr.  J.  R.  Graves, 
rather  complains  that   the  redoutable  book 


6  EEVIEW  OF 

had  received  no  notice  from  the  hands  of 
Presbyterians  up  to  that  time,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  slight  (and  slighting)  article 
from  Dr.  N.  L.  Eice,  in  the  St.  Louis  Pres- 
byterian. It  seems,  he  fears  we  poor  Pres- 
byterians will  scarcely  make  a  resistence 
stout  enough  to  give  the  combativeness  of 
the  author  and  his  publishers  a  satisfactory 
glow,  in  drubbing  us.  Now  we  felt  upon 
coming  to  this,  that  we  had  reached  the 
point  where  forbearance  ceases  to  be  a  vir- 
tue. The  temptation  became  irresistible  to 
undeceive  Mr.  J.  E.  Graves  &  Co.  by  in- 
forming him  and  all  the  world,  that  what  he 
had  mistaken  for  fear  or  the  part  of  Pres- 
byterians, was  only  contempt.  Seeing  that 
our  Christian  forbearance,  and  our  disgust 
at  an  assault  so  unworthy  of  a  Christian 
denomination,  have  been  thus  misunder- 
stood, we  feel  that  it  is  both  a  right  and 
duty  to  speak  out,  and  we  hereby  assure 
Mr.  J.  E.  Graves  &  Co.  and  their  anony- 
mous author,  that  when  we  have  done  with 
them  they  will  no  longer  have  any  ground 
to  complain  of  being  unnoticed  by  Presby- 
terians. 

1.  The  tenor  of  both  these  works  is  to  re- 
present Presbyterians  as  given  to  persecu- 
tion, intolerant,  ignorant  of  the  reasons  of 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  7 

their  own  faith,  and  almost  stupidly  foolish 
in  their  defence  of  them,  an  easy  prey  to 
proselyters,  and  priest-ridden  by  their  doc- 
tors of  divinity.  In  the  work  first  described^ 
the  immersionist  young  lady  is  pictured  as 
subjected  to  a  most  painful  persecution  by 
her  Presbyterian  father-in-law,  because  she 
could  not  conscientiously  commune  with 
him.  In  Theodosia  Earnest,  the  Presbyte- 
rian pastor  is  described,  with  his  people,  in 
*all  the  colors  above  mentioned.  Now  there 
are  doubtless  individual  Presbyterians  who 
are  intolerant,  and  others  who  are  ill-inform- 
ed, gullible,  prejudiced  as  there  are  such 
unfortunate  persons  in  all  other  denomina- 
tions, even  the  purest.  But  is  it  truthful  to 
embody  such  cases,  as  representative  of 
Presbyterianism?  A  representative  case 
must  be  so  chosen,  as  to  be  true  to  the 
general  average,  at  least,  of  the  class.  It  is 
perfectly  well  known  to  this  anonymous 
scribbler  and  his  publishers,  that  Presbyte- 
rians are  not,  as  a  denomination  intolerant 
or  persecuting  towards  other  evangelical 
Christians,  nor  less  informed  of  the  reasons 
for  their  own  tenets;  nor  are  they  usually 
an  easy  prey  to  the  sectarian  proselyter. 
When  that  traitorous  Mother  of  Mischief, 
Harriet  Beecher  Stowe,  launched  her  in- 


8  EEVIEW   OF 

famous  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  against  the 
slaveholders,  this  was  just  the  ground  upon 
which  all  fair  men  condemned  it,  as  a  vil- 
lainous slander.  There  have  been  individual 
slaveholders,  who  have  been  unjust  enough 
to  sell  industrious  and  honest  slaves  to  slave 
dealers.  There  have  been  such  cases  at  the 
South,  as  that  of  the  monster  Legare  who 
tormented  his  slave  to  death.  Who  denies 
it?  So  there  have  been  men  at  the  North, 
who  have  abused  domestic  relations,  to  tor- 
ment their  children  and  murder  their  wives. 
But  herein,  we  urged  and  with  irrefragra- 
ble  justice,  is  the  wickedness  and  false- 
hood of  this  abolition  novel,  that  it  takes 
the  rare  outrages  of  southern  society,  and 
makes  them  representative  of  our  customary 
state.  So  we  reason  concerning  these  pole- 
mical novels.  They  select  the  rare  excep- 
tions of  Presbyterian  character,  for  the 
representative  cases;  they  are  therefore  but 
slanders,  they  deserve  to  be  judged  by  the 
same  rule  with  the  vile  and  malignant  as- 
sault of  the  above  mentioned  high  priestess 
of  discord. 

2.  But  the  disposition  to  misrepresent 
Presbyterians  is  still  more  openly  manifest- 
ed in  the  details  of  the  work.  One  of  the 
charges  again  and  again  made  against  them 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  9 

is,  that  they  expel  from  their  communion,  those 
who  propose  to  seek  immersion,  and  the 
fellowship  of  immersionist  congregations. 
On  page  102  of  Theodosia  Earnest,  the 
Presbyterian  pastor  is  represented  as  threat- 
ening her  in  the  following  terms,  to  deter 
her  from  the  farther  investigation  of  the 
question : 

"And  now,  before  I  take  my  leave,  I 
feel  it  my  duty  solemnly  to  warn  you  before 
God,  to  take  heed  where  you  are  going.  I 
should  be  greatly  pained,  if  we  should  find 
it  necessary  to  expel  you  from  the  church." 

"Expel  me  from  the  church  i  Why  Mr. 
Johnson,'*  &c. 

Again:  on  page  269,  the  church  session 
of  the  Presbyterian  church  is  represented 
as  holding  a  meeting,  with  a  Doctor  of  Di- 
vinity and  President  of  College,  and  another 
minister  besides  Mr.,  Johnson,  as  advisers — 
Theodosia  has  now  been  dipped:  and  the 
pastor  is  represented  as  stating  the  case 
thus: 

"We  understand  that  Miss  Earnest,  while 
her  name  was  still  standing  as  a  member 
upon  our  record,  has  gone  to  a  Baptist  so- 
ciety, solicited  immersion,  and  has  actually 
been  immersed  by  a  Baptist  preacher.  By 
this  act  she  has   undoubtedly  severed  all 


10  EEVTEW   OF 

connexion  with  our  church,  and  must  of  ne- 
cessity be  excluded  from  our  communion. 
The  only  question  is,  whether  we  are  bound 
to  make  the  usual  citation  to  appear,  and 
answer  to  the  charge." 

Now  it  is  possible  that  in  so  large  a  de- 
nomination as  the  Presbyterian,  some  case 
may  have  happened,  where  a  church  session 
so  far  misunderstood  our  polity,  as  to  pro- 
pose discipline  against  a  member  who  de- 
signed to  leave  his  church  for  some  other 
branch  of  the  church  catholic.  But  we  do 
not  believe  there  ever  was  such  a  case.  If 
there  was,  it  was  a  rare  exception.  This 
religious  novel,  by  introducing  the  incident 
as  a  part  of  the  tale,  evidently  designs  to 
represent  it  as  regular  Presbyterian  usage. 
The  whole  scope  of  the  book  is  to  exemplify 
Immersionism  versus  Presbyterianism;  and 
therefore,  unless  the  instance  were  a  fair 
representation  of  our  usage,  it  should  have 
no  place  in  the  story.  But  if  the  reader 
would  know  how  just  this  representation  is, 
let  him  consult  the  Minutes  of  our  General 
Assembly  for  the  year  1839,  page  177. 
This  Judicatory,  the  supreme  regulator  in  all 
our  denomination,  resolves;  "That  in  all 
cases  where  members  of  any  of  our  churches 
apply  for  dismission  to  unite  with  a  church 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  11 

of  another  denomination,  the  proper  course 
is  to  give  a  certificate  of  Christian  charac- 
ter only." 

The  Presbytery  of  Hudson  requesting  the 
rule  to  be  rescinded,  as  being  not  sufficient- 
ly courteous  to  other  denominations,  the 
Assembly  of  1848,  Minutes,  p.  22,  reply: 

"The  Presbytery  of  Hudson  has  misap- 
prehended the  spirit  and  scope  of  the  reso- 
lution in  question.  It  is  neither  a  censure 
on  the  individuals,  nor  the  churches  to 
which  they  seek  to  be  dismissed,  but  sets 
forth  the  only  fact  which  it  is  important 
that  those  churches  should  know." 

The  Assembly  here  declares,  (it  does  not 
institute  de  novo,)  the  proper  usage.  And 
such  is  the  liberal  and  fraternal  spirit  in 
which  our  denomination  has  always,  so  far 
as  we  know,  recognized  the  Christian  cha- 
racter of  all  other  evangelical  churches, 
and  the  right  of  Presbyterians  to  go  from 
us  to  them  if  they  see  fit.  We  cheerfully 
commend  them,  by  testimonials  of  their 
good  standing,  to  the  brethren  with  whom 
they  wish  to  unite;  and  then  as  they  are  no 
longer  exclusively  ours,  we  of  course  remove 
their  names  from  our  communion  roll. 
TVhere  a  member  does  as  Theodosia  is  re- 
presented   as    doing,    goes     away   without 


12  REVIEW   OP 

deigning  to  say  "Good-bye;"  of  course  we 
can  only  do  the  latter  act  of  the  two,  re- 
move the  name  from  our  communion  roll. 
We  are  allowed  no  opportunity  to  give  the 
testimonials,  for  they  are  not  asked.  Where 
then,  did  the  author  of  Theodosia  get  the 
notion  of  our  excommunicating  such  a  mem- 
ber? The  reader  may  find  it  in  the  cur- 
rent usage  of  the  Immersionist  churches, 
which,  as  is  well  known,  do  expel  those 
members  who  commune  with  the  other 
branches  of  Christ's  church — that  the  Pres- 
byterian church  should  be  represented  as 
guilty  of  such  intolerance  as  the  author's 
church  currently  practices,  we  justly  resent, 
as  an  odious  slander. 

In  this  connexion  we  will  notice  another 
trait  of  injustice  in  this  romance;  the  insin- 
uation that  the  Presbyterians  of  the  United 
States  would  fain  prosecute  Immersionists 
for  their  denial  of  infant  baptism,  if  they 
dared.  Let  the  reader  note  the  deceitful 
form  in  which  the  charge  is  suggested. 
Theodosia,  page  167.  Mr.  Courtney,  the 
Immersionist  schoolmaster  says: 

"I  have  it  over  the  signatures  of  Koman 
Catholic,  Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  Dutch 
Reformed,  and  Presbyterian  writers,  who, 
while  they  have  been  in  full  connexion  with 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  13 

those  very  establishments,  all  of  which  have 
(when  they  could,)  been  the  most  virulent 
and  cruel  persecutors  of  the  Baptists,"  &c. 
On  page  308,  the  same  spokesman  says: 

"The  most  bitter  and  relentless  persecu- 
tion was  directed  especially  against  those 
who  denied  infant  baptism.  This  has  con- 
tinued through  every  age.  It  has  not  been 
confined  to  the  Eoman  Catholics.  It  nas 
been  practised  by  all  the  so-called  churches 
that  received  infant  members,  (your  own  in- 
cluded,) whenever  and  wherever  they  have 
been  able  to  obtain  the  power,"  &c.  The 
speaker  is  addressing  a  family  of  Presby- 
terians in  our  country.  And  once  more  : 
on  page  339,  speaking  of  the  persecution 
of  Donatists  in  Africa  in  the  5th  century, 
he  says: 

"From  this  day  down  to  the  present,  in 
every  country  where  Peedobaptists  have  had 
the  power,  our  brethren  have  been  the  sub- 
jects of  bitter  and  unrelenting  persecution." 

On  the  same  page,  this  speaker  claims 
the  "Donatists,  Novatianists,  Cathari,  Pau- 
licians,  Henricans,  Petrobrussians,  Menno- 
nites,  Allegences,  Waldenses,  &c,"  as  sub- 
stantially of  his  church.  Let  us  remark  in 
passing,  the  evidence  both  of  profound  ig- 
norance, and   unprincipled  recklessaess  of 


14  REVIEW  OF 

assertion,  contained  in  the  last  sentence. 
Every  well  informed  student  of  Church  His- 
tory knows,  that,  of  all  the  sects  named ; 
only  the  Petrobrussians,  and  Mennonites, 
with  perhaps  the  Henricians,  held  any  im- 
portant peculiarity  in  common  with  the  mo- 
dern Immersionsts.  The  Waldenses  always 
declare  that  they  have  practised  infant  bap- 
tism in  all  ages,  as  they  do  now.  The 
Donatists  and  Novatians  declared  for  them- 
selves, that  they  only  differed  from  the 
Catholic  Christians  of  their  own  day,  on  the 
question  of  communion  with  certain  Bishops 
whose  ordination  they  considered  as  cor- 
rupt. It  seems  that  this  author  of  Theodo- 
sia,  in  his  raking  together  of  ready-made 
falsehoods  at  second  and  third  hand,  is  too 
ignorant  to  know  even  how  to  spell  the 
names  of  the  sects  about  which  he  professes 
to  be  informed.  Students  of  history  are 
accustomed  to  hear  of  Henricians,  and  Al- 
bigenses;  not  of  Henricans  and  Allegences. 
But  this  is  by  the  way.  It  was  seen  that 
this  writer  does  not  dare  to  charge  Ameri- 
can Presbyterians  with  having  actually  per- 
secuted Immersionists.  But  he  obviously 
designs  to  make  the  impression  on  ignorant 
readers,  that  the  only  reason  we  have  not 
done  so  is,  that  our  free  government  has  not 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  15 

permitted  us.  Else  why  the  reiterated  as- 
sertion, that  Psedobaptist  churches,  (includ- 
ing our  own)  have  persecuted  them  whenever 
and  wherever  they  had  the  power? 

But  now,  what  are  the  facts?  The  Pro- 
testant churches  of  the  16  th  and  17th  cen- 
turies, unfortunately  holding  the  doctrine 
of  persecution,  did,  to  a  very  limited  extent, 
punish  sectaries  with  civil  pains;  and  among 
others,  Anabaptists.  Some  Presbyterian 
churches  in  Europe  were  implicated  in  this 
guilt.  But  the  Presbyterian  church  of 
America  is  in  no  closer  sense  a  descendant 
of  those  European  churches,  or  responsible 
for  their  misdeeds,  than  the  Immersionistg 
of  America  are  descendants  of  the  German 
Anabaptists  and  responsible  for  their  frantic 
anarchy.  Our  church  in  America  is  an  in- 
dependent and  original  body.  And  from 
the  very  day  of  the  first  organisation  of  its 
first  Presbytery,  it  has  been  the  consistent 
and  uniform  friend  of  the  widest  religioug 
liberties  to  all  equally.  In  the  forming 
times  of  our  Eepublic,  the  Presbyterian  de- 
nomination led  the  van,  in  this  glorioug 
cause,  and  were  the  exemplars  of  that  zeal 
with  which  Immersionists,  (we  mention  it 
to  their  credit)  asserted  the  same  rights  of 
religious  liberty.    Werepeat;  Presbyterians 


16  REVIEW   01 

led  the  van,  in  claiming  the  widest  liberty 
for  all  others  equally  with  themselves.  Had 
this  unscrupulous  scribbler  intended  to  speak 
the  truth,  he  would  have  said  :  'The  most 
of  the  churches  of  the  Keformation,  includ- 
ing several  of  the  Presbyterian,  were  guilty 
of  persecuting  sectaries,  and  among  others, 
Immersionists,  when  they  had  the  power: 
But  in  this  country,  the  Presbvterian  church 
has  never  had  either  the  power  or  the  wish 
to  do  so.'  In  one  word,  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  United  States  is  at  least,  as 
clear  from  the  desire  to  persecute  Immer- 
sionists, as  Immersionists  are  of  the  desire 
to  persecute  them.  We  denounce,  there- 
fore, with  deserved  indignation,  this  odious, 
false  and  wicked  attempt,  to  create  angry 
blood  in  Immersionists  against  Presbyte- 
rians. Heaven  knows,  there  is  heat  enough 
already,  while  the  question  of  baptism  is 
debated  in  the  fiery  and  reckless  spirit  of 
this  novel.  Its  unholy  purpose,  it  seems, 
demanded  the  inflaming  of  bad  passions, 
in  order  to  blind  its  readers  to  the  wildness 
of  its  assertions  and  the  flimsiness  of  its 
arguments. 

It  may  be  said,  by  the  way,  that  the  au- 
thor puts  nearly  all  his  arguments  and  as- 
sertions on  the  Immersionist  side,  into  the 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  1? 

mouth  of  a  little  schoolmaster,  a  Mr.  Court- 
ney, a  man  of  infinite  pertness,  and  rabid 
fluency.  Courtney  is  evidently  the  nom  de 
guerre  of  the  author's  self;  and  the  tirades 
with  which  he  overwhelms  [at  least  the  ears 
of]  the  dramatis  persona,  are,  as  evidently, 
the  staple  of  the  harangues  which  the  author 
(an  Immersionist  preacher,  no  doubt,)  is  in 
the  habit  of  fulminating  from  his  pulpit. 
We  shall  therefore,  for  convenience  sake, 
employ  the  name  of  Courtney  sometimes  as 
representing  the  Immersionist  advocate. 

3.  The  folly  and  unfairness  of  such  a 
mode  of  inculcating  or  defending  what  is 
supposed  to  be  religious  truth,  can  scarcely 
be  too  strongly  represented.  In  the  first 
place,  a  moment's  consideration  should  have 
taught  the  author,  that  his  selecting  such  a 
vehicle  for  his  discussion  was  really  a  con- 
fession of  weakness  and  defeat.  Having 
failed  to  overthrow  the  sturdy  Presbyterian 
champions  in  the  fields  of  true  and  legiti- 
mate discussion,  he  is  compelled  to  manu- 
facture fictitious  adversaries,  in  the  pretend- 
ed persons  of  Pastor  Johnson,  Dr.  Mc- 
Kought,  and  elder  Jones,  who  should  be 
stupid  and  foolish  enough  to  give  this 
doughty  Don  Quixote  a  chance  to  claim  the 
victory — If  he  wished  to  try  conclusions 
2 


18  REVIEW   OF 

with  a  veritable  Presbyterian  champion, 
why  did  he  not  select  a  bona  fide  and  live 
controversialist,  in  the  person  of  some  N. 
L.  Eice,  or  Wm.  L.  McCalla?  Ah;  it  was 
easier  to  gain  a  seeming  victory  over  a  man 
of  straw!  And  this  is  not  all :  Conscious, 
as  it  seems,  of  the  intrinsic  weakness  of 
his  argument,  the  author  must  needs  throw 
around  it  the  factitious  and  illegitimate  in- 
terest of  a  love-story.  He  did  not  believe, 
it  seems,  that  his  principles  were  important 
and  interesting  enough,  to  make  Christian 
people  read  an  honest  and  straightforward 
discussion  of  them  for  its  own  sake :  he  must 
needs  sugar  the  nauseous  dose,  to  make  it 
go  down.  And  then,  one  of  his  foremost 
champi  ns  forsooth,  is  a  young,  pretty  and 
ingenue,  i  girl,  who  is  painted  as  attrac- 
tively as  the  author's  bungling  hand  knew 
how ;  in  01  der  to  gain  the  unfair  advantage 
of  the  feelings  of  readers  for  youth,  beauty 
and  sex.  Sophistries  from  the  mouth  of  a 
bearded  man  would  be  handled  as  they  de- 
served ;  but  when  they  drop  from  the  pretty 
mouth  of  a  pretty  woman,  gallantry  forbids 
our  testing  them  too  narrowly !  So  that  the 
author,  afraid  to  meet  men,  and  as  a  man, 
skulks  behind  the  petticoats  of  his  heroine. 
And  indeed ;  what  is  the  intrinsic  absurdi- 


THEODOSTA   EARNEST.  19 

ty  of  sending  Christian  people  to  hunt  for 
truth  (and  that  sacred  truth,)  in  a  work  of 
fiction  ?  It  is  an  insult  to  the  understand- 
ings of  readers  ;  and  a  disgrace  to  the  de- 
nomination which  is  judged  to  need  such  a 
mode  of  defence.  No  seeming  triumph 
gained  over  an  imaginary  antagonist  can 
prove  any  thing ;  for,  as  the  same  author 
constructed  both  his  adversary's  argument 
and  his  own,  of  course  he  would  make  the 
victory  fall  on  his  side.  iEsop  tells  us,  in 
one  of  his  fables,  how  the  man  and  the  lion 
were  once,  during  a  truce  in  their  warfare, 
amicably  walking  out  together  to  take  the 
air.  They  passed  a  picture  where  a  lion 
was  represented  as  bound,  and  crouching 
under  the  cudgel  of  a  man.  The  man  says 
to  his  lion  friend:  -'You  see  there  the  su- 
periority of  our  race  to  yours."  "Nay," 
quoth  the  lion,  "it  is  because  a  man  was  the 
painter.  If  a  lion  had  held  the  brush,  the 
parties  would  have  been  in  a  rather  differ- 
ent position."  Let  the  reader  make  the 
application. 

It  is  said  indeed,  that  Immersionists  justi- 
fy the  circulation  of  the  work  by  saving, 
that  though  there  is  a  fictitious  plot  to  make 
the  book  readable,  all  is  fair,  because  the 
arguments  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  Pres- 


20  REVIEW  OF 

byterian  characters  are  the  standard  argu- 
ments which  we  use  when  defending  our- 
selves, and  that  they  are  fairly  stated.  But 
we  beg  leave  to  dispute  both  facts.  Ac- 
cording to  all  fair  forensic  rules,  our  mere 
word,  repudiating  those  arguments  as  fair 
and  full  statements  of  our  side,  entitles  us 
to  arrest  a  debate  conducted  on  such  a  plan. 
When  plaintiff  and  defendant  come  into 
court,  each  party  has  a  sovereign  discretion 
in  selecting  his  own  advocate.  If  the  de- 
fendant says  that  the  counsel  who  has  vo- 
lunteered in  his  cause  is  not  the  man  of  his 
choice;  and  that,  instead  of  representing 
him  fairly,  he  is  betraying  him,  this  is 
enough.  It  is  only  necessary  for  the  de- 
fendant to  say  that  he  considers  this  volun- 
teer-advocate as  unfaithful;  it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  him  to  prove  him  such.  He  is 
entitled  to  make  his  own  selection  of  a  de- 
fender. So,  we  Presbyterians  now  and  here- 
by notify  Messrs.  Graves,  Marks  &  Co.,  and 
Messrs.  Sheldon,  Blakeman  &  Co.,  and  all 
Immersionist  preachers,  colporteurs,  mem- 
bers and  proselyters,  in  these  United  States 
and  the  British  Provinces,  and  wherever 
the  far  famed  Theodosia  may  be  running, 
that  we  do  not  consider,  and  never  have 
considered  the  fair  water-nymph  (who  was 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  21 

a  full  blooded  Immersionist  before  she  be- 
gan the  investigation)  nor  the  Presbyterian 
elder,  Uncle  Jones,  (who  was  evidently  fishy, 
i.  e.  indulging  partial  tendencies  to  go  un- 
der the  water,  from  the  beginning,)  nor 
poor,  old  parson  Johnson,  (who  confesses 
he  had  never  examined  the  subject  much,) 
as  suitable  advocates  of  our  cause ;  that  we 
hereby  repudiate  them  as  such;  and  that  we 
now  lay  our  formal  "injunction"  on  the  pro- 
gress of  the  discussion  in  such  feeble  and 
treacherous  hands.  Now,  will  our  Immer- 
sionist neighbors  arrest  the  debate;  will 
they  suspend  the  circulation  of  the  ex  'parte 
and  repudiated  discussion,  until  the  justice 
of  our  assertion  can  be  tested ;  as  they  are 
forensically  bound  to  do,  in  all  fairness  and 
honesty?  We  shall  see.  But  if  they  are 
very  anxious  to  prosecute  this  great  cause 
of  Immersionism  versus  Presbyterianism,  at 
once ;  let  them  take  the  arguments  of  some 
real,  actual  Presbyterians,  such  as  Dr.  John 
H.  Rice's  Irenicum,  Dr.  John  M.  Mason's 
Treatise  on  the  Church  of  God,  or  Dr.  N.  L. 
Rice's  Debate  with  Campbell;  print  the  whole 
of  the  Presbyterian  argument  in  Presbyte- 
rian works,  [and  not  a  few  disjointed  scraps, 
falsely  and  treacherously  torn  from  them] 
along  with  the  best  refutations  they  can 


22  BE  VIEW   OF 

get ;  and  lay  these  two  pleas  before  the 
great  jury  of  the  Keligious  Public.  This, 
if  fairly  done,  might  be  fair. 

The  real  motive  and  design  of  this  advo- 
cacy of  pretended  truth  by  fiction,  is  this: 
It  was  hoped  that  the  love-tale,  the  picto- 
rial illustrations,  the  influence  of  sex  and 
youth  in  the  heroines  favor,  would  make  a 
multitude  of  ignorant  people  swallow  the 
book,  with  its  whole  dose  of  misrepresenta- 
tions, false  issues,  and  unfounded  assertions; 
who  would  never  have  taste,  patience,  or 
capacity,  to  read  any  such  reply  as  Presbyte- 
rians could  condescend  to  write.  These  read- 
ers would  gulph  down  the  low  novel,  but 
they  wrould  be  very  secure  from  the  danger 
of  reading  a  manly,  straight-forward  dis- 
cussion of  its  pretended  arguments  and 
statements,  unseasoned  with  fiction  ©r  dema- 
gogueism.  The  whole  enterprise  is  a  cal- 
culation on  the  gullibility  of  mankind;  and 
it  must  be  confessed,  a  calculation  which 
was  certain  of  realization  to  a  large  degree. 
But  then  it  is  also  true,  that  the  very  ele- 
ment which  ensures  this  partial  success  to 
the  book,  is  the  element  also  of  its  unfair- 
ness. It  is  successful  because  it  is  so  unfair. 
So,  in  crimes  of  blacker  character,  the  very 
treachery  of  the   assault  is  oftentimes  the 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  23 

thing  which  makes  resistance  ineffectual. 
When  an  honorable  enemy  meets  us  fairly 
by  daylight,  and  face  to  face,  we  have  a 
chance  of  successful  self-defence,  according 
to  that  measure  of  prowess  which  God  has 
given  us.  But  if  our  adversary  is  wicked 
enough  to  turn  assassin,  and  waylay  our 
path,  we  are  very  free  to  confess  that  we 
are  in  his  power;  except  so  far  as  a  good 
Providence  interposes,  the  strength  and 
skill  of  a  Hercules  will  not  avail. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  then,  that 
we  neither  hope  nor  expect  to  be  attentive- 
ly and  dispassionately  read  by  the  persons 
for  whom  the  shrewd  managers  of  Theodosia 
Earnest  have  set  their  trap.  People  who 
are  foolish  enough  to  go  to  a  work  of  fiction 
to  learn  sacred  truth,  are  not  likely  to  at- 
tend to  a  scholarly  and  solid  discussion. 
(But  it  may  be  added  that  such  people  are 
hardly  fit  material  to  make  Presbyterians 
of,  at  any  rate.)  We  do  not  write  for  such. 
Our  object  is  defensive.  Learning  that  this 
novel  is  not  only  circulated  among  Immer- 
sionists,  but  obtruded  very  actively  on  Pres- 
byterians, our  purpose  is,  only  to  give  our 
own  people  the  means  of  knowing  and  ex- 
posing its  true  character,  when  they  are  as- 
sailed. 


24  REVIEW   OP 

4.  This  book  bears  on  its  face  another 
evidence  of  dishonesty.  It  comes  forth  to 
the  world  wholly  without  any  responsible 
name.  By  this,  we  do  not  mean  to  com- 
plain of  the  fact  that  its  authorship  is  not 
made  known  to  the  public;  but  that  while  it 
is  anonymous  in  its  parentage,  no  Editor, 
nor  religious  denomination,  nor  agency, 
stands  god-father  for  it.  A  polemical  work, 
especially  one  which  so  aggressively  assaults 
other  Christians,  ought  to  have  some  re- 
sponsible party  to  be  held  answerable  for 
its  statements.  But  a  still  stronger  trait  of 
dishonesty  is  the  absence  of  all  reference- 
marks  to  the  books  and  other  authorities 
cited,  in  a  majority  of  cases.  In  some  cases, 
such  references  are  given  ;  but  in  far  more, 
authors  are  quoted  in  the  most  positive  tone 
of  assertion,  and  no  clue  is  given,  by  chap- 
ter, section,  or  page,  to  the  part  of  the 
works  where  the  quotations  may  be  verified. 
Are  we  to  account  for  this  peculiarity,  which 
is  as  unscholarly  as  it  is  fraudulent,  by  the 
author's  ignorance  ?  That  ignorance  is  mani- 
fest enough  ;  but  it  is  a  very  imperfect  ex- 
cuse; because  mere  common  sense  would 
have  taught  him  that  every  writer,  and  es- 
pecially one  who,  like  Mr.  Courtney,  boasts 
frequently  that  it  was  not  his  wont  to  assert 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  25 

things,  but  to  prove  them,  is  bound  to  give 
his  readers  the  means  of  reading  his  cita- 
tions for  themselves,  and  judging  of  their 
relevancy  and  fidelity.  The  advocate  who 
refuses  to  subject  his  witnesses  to  his  oppo- 
nent's cross-examination,  is  justly  thrown 
out  of  court.  Literary  usage  would  justify 
us  in  summarily  throwing  out  far  the  larger 
part  of  this  author's  citations,  on  this  sole 
ground.  We  might  justly  say  ;  "We  do  not 
listen  to  your  witnesses ;  we  count  them  as 
non-existent ;  because  you  have  not  given 
us  chapter,  or  page,  or  section."  But  let 
not  the  reader  suppose  that  we  make  these 
complaints,  because  there  is  any  serious 
difficulty  in  rebutting  or  exploding  the  au- 
thorities of  Theodosia  and  her  schoolmaster. 
They  are  easily  caught,  notwithstanding 
their  attempted  skulking,  as  the  reader  will 
see. 

Our  plan  in  the  remainder  of  this  review 
will  be,  to  take  up,  nearly  at  random,  a 
part  of  the  writer's  false  issues  and  sophis- 
tries, and  expose  them ;  and  to  show  the 
treacherous  use  of  authorities  and  testimo- 
nies cited  by  him,  in  a  sufficient  number  of 
cases  to  enable  the  reader  to  estimate  his 
trustworthiness.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to 
write  a  connected  treatise  on  baptism.  This 


REVIEW   OF 

won,  is  not  now  needed.  The  many  sound 
and  irrefragable  arguments  already  con- 
structed by  our  divines  leave  little  to  be  de- 
sired, except  their  diligent  circulation  and 
study  by  our  own  people.  Certainly,  there 
is  no  peculiar  force  or  originality  in  this 
pretentious  work,  to  create  an  occasion  for 
a  new  handling  of  the  great  question.  The 
author  advances  nothing  new.  The  familiar 
old  grounds  of  discussion  are  brought  in 
review.  The  only  peculiarity  is  that  the 
solid  proofs  on  which  Psgdobaptists  have 
usually  and  justly  relied,  are  here  obscured 
by  a  new  batch  of  sophistries  and  misstate- 
ments. The  only  force  which  these  sophis- 
tries have,  is  the  impudent  hardihood  with 
which  they  are  asserted. 

5.  As  one  specimen  of  a  critical  argu- 
ment, let  the  reader  take  the  following. 
On  page  83,  good  old  Mr.  Johnson  is  re- 
presented as  citing  the  well  known  and  un- 
answerable argument  against  immersion 
that  John  the  Baptist,  (in  Matt,  iii:  11,)  is 
represented  as  saying:  "I  indeed  baptize 
you  with  water,  unto  repentance ;  but  he 
that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I, 
whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear ;  he 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
with  fire."    Hence,  argues  old  Mr.  Johnson, 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  2 1 

it  was  not  immersion,  but  sprinkling  or 
pouring;  for  one  would  not  so  naturally 
speak  of  immersing  with  water.  Now  we 
beg  our  readers  to  notice  the  dishonesty  of 
this  novel-writer.  Instead  of  representing 
the  Presbyterian  pastor  as  going  further, 
to  substantiate  this  argument  by  the  addi- 
tions usually  made  to  it  by  Psedobaptists 
when  they  employ  it  (additions  in  which  its 
chief  force  consists,)  the  author  distinctly 
indicates  that  the  above  contains  the  whole 
strength  of  the  position  of  Presbyterians. 
Miss  Theodosia  and  her  lover  seem  to  be 
for  a  moment  somewhat  posed  by  the  ar- 
gument; and  just  then  the  ubiquitous  Mr. 
Courtney  drops  in.  They  tell  him  the  sub- 
stance of  Mr.  Johnson's  words  ;  (page  86,) 
adding  that  they  do  not  well  know  how  to 
get  over  it. 

'•Is  that  all?"  asks  Mr.  Courtney? 

"Yes;"  (says  Mr.  Percy  the  lover,)  "that 
is  the  substance  of  the  argument." 

Thus  the  author  of  the  novel  endeavors 
to  produce  the  impression  that  this  argu- 
ment, in  the  hands  of  Presbyterians,  is  sus- 
tained solely  by  the  criticism  of  the  preposi- 
tion in  the  phrase  "baptism  with  water." 
He  makes  his  dramatis  personal  say ;  That 
is  in  substance,  all  of  the  argument.     But 


28  EEVIEW   OF 

he  knew  perfectly  well,  (or  else  his  assump- 
tion to  debate  baptism  is  impudent  charla- 
tanry,) that  this  is  not  all :  that  this  is  but 
the  beginning  of  the  statement  of  the  case 
as  Presbyterians  put  it.  He  took  good 
care  not  to  let  his  parties  proceed  to  collate 
this  passage  with  Acts  i :  5,  ii :  3  and  4, 
17,  18,  38;  x:  44;  and  xi:  15,  16.  For 
then,  it  would  have  appeared  that  Mr.  John- 
son's interpretation  of  the  baptism  with 
water,  and  with  the  Holy  Ghost  must  be 
correct ;  because  the  Holy  Ghost  is  there 
said  with  immediate  reference  to  John's 
language,  again  and  again,  to  fall  on  the 
disciples,  and  to  be  poured  out,  and  the  fire 
with  which  they  were  baptized,  sat  on  each 
of  them  like  cloven  tongues.  But  this  by 
the  way:  Mr.  Courtney  thereupon  expresses 
his  amazement  that  Mr.  Johnson  should  be 
so  unfair  as  to  take  advantage  of  the  Eng- 
lish  version,  reveals  to  them  the  fact  that 
the  preposition  translated  with  in  Matt,  ii : 
11,  is  en,  and  appeals  to  Mr.  Percy  (a  Greek 
scholar,)  for  the  admitted  fact,  that  en  in 
classic  Greek  usually  means  in,  and  not 
with;  so  that  had  not  King  James'  naughty 
translators,  to  the  perpetual  anguish  of  all 
English  and  American  Immersionists,  ob- 
scured the  sense,  the  passage  should  have 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  29 

read:  "1  indeed  baptize  you  in  water;  .  . 
.  .  he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  in  fire."  He  then  proceeds  to  remark, 
(page  89,)  that  en  is  used  two  thousand, 
seven  hundred  and  twenty  times  in  the  New 
Testament;  that  in  about  twenty-five  hun- 
dred of  these  places,  it  does  of  necessity 
mean  in  and  not  with;  that  in  twenty  other 
places,  in  would  better  express  the  meaning 
of  the  original  than  with,  while  with  (in 
the  sense  of  instrument  or  material)  is  the 
necessary  meaning  in  only  forty  places. 
Therefore  argues  Mr.  Courtney ;  "The 
chances  are  as  twenty-seven  hundred  to 
forty,  that  an  argument  based  on  the  word 
<"witti  (where  it  stands  for  the  Greek  word 
'en')  will  lead  to  a  false  conclusion;  and  the 
chances  are  as  twenty-seven  hundred,  to 
forty,  that  an  argument  based  on  'z'«,'  as 
the  real  meaning  of  the  word,  will  lead  to  a 
true  conclusion." 

Now,  in  the  first  place;  what  think  you, 
good  reader,  of  such  a  critical  argument  as 
this?  Let  us  apply  it  fairly  to  another  case  : 
The  Greek  word  stauros  ('cross,')  occurs 
twenty-eight  times  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  nineteen  of  these  cases,  it  means  unmis- 
takeably,  the  wooden  crucifix,  on  which 
Christ  (or  the  two  thieves)  was  executed. 


30  REVIEW   OF 

In  six  places  it  is  used  with  that  sense  which 
it  bears  in  Luke  xiv :  27.  "And  whosoever 
doth  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come  after  me, 
cannot  be  my  disciple."  Therefore,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Courtney's  marvellous  rule  of 
interpretation,  the  probabilities  would  be 
as  nineteen  to  six,  that  in  these  passages 
our  Saviour  means  :  "Whosoever  will  not 
bear  on  his  shoulder  a  wooden  cross,  and 
come  after  me,  cannot  be  my  disciple." 
But  does  not  every  reader  in  his  senses 
know,  that  the  word  stauros  must  here  be 
taken  in  the  allied  sense,  not  of  a  literal 
wooden  cross,  but  of  the  burden  of  Christ's 
service,  or  some  similar  derived  meaning? 
Does  any  body  believe  that  there  are  nine- 
teen chances  to  six,  or  that  there  is  one  to  a 
million,  that  Christ  here  meant  to  announce 
the  preposterous  assertion,  that  the  test  of 
Christian  character  was  to  be  carrying  a 
log  of  wood  on  the  back?  Farther  illus- 
tration of  the  ridiculous  nature  of  this  ar- 
gument is  not  needed.  The  truth  is,  as 
every  sensible  person  well  understands,  in 
every  language,  many  words  bear  more 
than  one  sense,  in  different  connexions, 
vthose  senses  being  usually  allied  to  each 
other  in  some  way,  though  not  the  same : 
that   any   honest    and   sensible   writer  or 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  31 

speaker  nevertheless  uses  all  sucli  words  in 
such  a  way  that  it  may  be  certainly  seen 
what  meanings  he  intends  them  to  bear  in 
given  connexions;  and  that  when  once  it  is 
discovered  a  given  word  may  be  grammati- 
cally used  in  a  certain  sense,  its  meaning 
in  a  particular  place  must  be  determined, 
not  by  inquiring  which  of  its  meanings  most 
frequently  occurs,  but  by  inquiring  only 
which  suits  this  connexion  most  obviously. 
Every  language  in  the  world  is  built  on 
these  principles :  every  man  in  the  world, 
(including  even  the  remarkable  Courtney) 
interprets  language  habitually  on  these 
principles,  wherever  prejudice  does  not 
blind  him.  And  it  does  indeed  look  like 
the  madness  of  despair,  that  Drs.  Carson 
and  Fuller,  the  British  and  American  ad- 
vocates whom  Immersionists  now  chiefly 
follow,  should  stake  their  cause  on  the  criti- 
cal rule ;  that  when  once  a  given  sense  has 
been  established  for  a  word  of  scripture,  as  its 
primary  sense,  that  meaning;  and  no  other, 
must  be  gotten  out  of  it  wherever  it  occurs.  No 
man  on  earth  interprets  language  on  this 
rule:  no  man  can  carry  it  out  consistently, 
in  his  understanding  of  the  scriptures.  And 
yet,  Dr.  Carson  concedes  no  more  than  he 
is  obliged,  when  he  virtually  admits   that 


32  KEVIEW   OF 

this  is  the  only  theory  of  interpretation  on 
which  immersion  can  be  proved  to  be  the 
only  baptism.  For  that  point  cannot  be 
proved,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  baptizo, 
and  baptismos  in  the  scriptures  always  mean 
dip  and  dipping,  and  nothing  else. 

But  in  the  second  place,  we  request  the 
reader  to  note  that  Mr.  Courtney  accuses 
good  old  Mr.  Johnson  of  great  unfairness 
in  employing  the  English  version,  which 
represents  John  as  speaking  of  baptism  with 
water,  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire, 
when  the  preposition  in  Greek  is  en.  And 
the  veracious  paedagogue  grounds  his  as- 
sertion of  the  evident  error  of  this  transla- 
tion on  this  fact :  that  little  Master  Edwin 
Earnest  informs  them  en  is  in  classic  Greek 
to  be  translated  by  *«*'  and  not  'with.' 
Now,  without  pausing  to  prove  that  this  is 
not  universally  true  even  in  classic  Greek, 
we  would  remind  Mr.  Courtney,  that  the 
Evangelists  did  not  write  in  classic,  but  in 
Hebraistic  Greek.  They,  being  native  He- 
brews, employed  many  Greek  words  and 
constructions  according  to  the  usages  of 
their  own  language.  And  moreover,  in  the 
Septuagint,  the  Greek  translation  made  by 
Jews,  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  preposition  en  is  not 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST*  33 

used  by  the  rules  of  a  classic  Greek;  but  is 
also  employed  universally  as  the  word  to 
translate  the  Hebrew  preposition  {beth.) 
In  Greek  written  by  a  Jew  therefore,  en 
may  be  expected  to  be  found  meaning  any 
thing  which  beth  might  mean.  These  as- 
sertions no  scholar  will  venture  to  dispute. 
The  correspondence  of  the  two  prepositions 
in  the  usage  of  Jews  writing  Greek  is  ex- 
pressly asserted  by  Gesenius,  in  his  Hebrew 
Lex:  which  the  reader  may  consult,  if  he 
chooses.  It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply 
authorities  on  so  plain  a  case.  But  what 
does  beth  mean?  Gesenius  tells  us,  at  the 
very  outset  of  his  article  on  the  word,  that 
the  various  significations  of  the  preposition 
are  grouped  under  three  classes,  1st,  beth 
meaning  "in"  2nd,  beth  meaning  iat>  or 
'&/,'  3d,  beth  meaning  'with1 — Consequent- 
ly, the  same  may  be  true  of  en,  when  used 
by  a  Jew.  Gesenius  then,  to  illustrate  what 
he  means  by  the  second  use  oi^betK'  refers 
to  1  Sam.  xxix:  1.  "The  Israelites  pitched 
(their  camp)  beth  hayin  which  is  in  Jesreel." 
(Hayin  means  spring  of  water.)  This 
the  Septuagint  translates;  "The  Israelites 
pitched  en  Aendoor:  And  the  English  ver- 
sion; "The  Israelites  pitched  by  a  fountain 
which  is  in  Jesreel."  (Mr.  Courtney,  we 
3 


34  REVIEW   OF 

suppose,  would  have  us  believe  that  the 
Israelite  army  pitched  their  camp  in  the 
spring  literally.)  Gesenius  also  refers  to 
Ezek.  x :  15,  where  "beth  nehar  Chebar" 
is  by  him  translated  in  Greek  en  potamo, 
and  in  English,  "By  the  river  Chebar." 
(So  that  when  it  is  said  John  was  baptizing 
en  Jordanee^  this  language  in  a  Jews's  mouth 
might  just  as  well  mean  at  Jordan  as  in 
Jordan.)  As  an  illustration  of  the  3d  use, 
he  gives  among  other  places,  Levit.  viii:  32, 
"shall  burn  lwit1i  fire;"  which  the  Hebrew 
expresses  by  ^bettC  and  the  Septuagint  by 
en.  So  that  it  is  not  true  there  is  any  pro- 
bability arising  from  the  usage  of  the  pre- 
position e?i,  in  Jewish  hands,  that  the  words 
"baptized  en  to  pneumati  hagio,  kai  en  puri" 
mean  baptized  'zV  rather  than  baptized 
hc'tiliS  But  then  also,  to  make  it  perfectly 
plain;  the  sacred  writers  show  that  they  use 
en  in  the  sense  of  baptizing  iwitli>  water, 
by  using  as  an  equivalent  expression,  the 
ablative  of  instrument  (liudate  baptizoj  with- 
out any  preposition  at  all.  This  is  the  case 
for  instance,  in  Luke  iii :  16;  Acts  i :  5;  Acts 
xi:  16.  Is  not  the  indignant  astonishment 
of  the  reader  now  rather  turned  on  the 
schoolmaster,  for  thus  hoodwinking  his  ig- 
norant victims,  than  on  Mr.  Johnson,  for 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  35 

claiming  the  propriety  of  the  English  ver- 
sion? Or  was  the  author  ignorant  of  the 
well  known  distinction  between  classic  and 
Hebraistic  Greek?  Then  is  he  not  a  pretty 
man,  to  presume  to  discuss  the  language  of 
the  original  scriptures,  and  to  hurl  his  scur- 
rilities broadcast,  at  all  the  wise  and  good 
men  who  have  ventured  to  speak  the  truth 
about  baptism? 

But  in  the  third  place,  when  this  prophe- 
cy of  John :  "There  cometh  one  after  me  . 
...  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire,"  is  seen  in  the  light  of 
its  fulfilment  in  the  book  of  Acts,  at  the 
places  above  cited,  the  meaning  appears 
without  the  possibility  of  a  doubt.  There 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  baptized  them  is 
"youredout"  "poured  forth?'  "fell  on  them, 
as  on  us  at  the  beginning;"  and  the  fire 
which  baptized  them  "sat  on  each  of  them  as 
it  had  been  cloven  tongues."  No  matter 
what  the  usage  of  the  preposition  might  be, 
every  man  in  his  senses  would  see  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  applied  to  their  persons, 
and  not  their  persons  dipped  into  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  then,  if  John,  and  the  Book  of 
Acts  quoting  John  speak  of  baptism  with 
the  Spirit,  and  with  water  in  the  same 
breath,  the  inference  is   unavoidable,  that 


36  REVIEW   OF 

the  two  baptisms  were  similar  in  their  mode. 
Hence  it  was,  that  it  suited  the  purpose  of 
the  author  of  Theodosia,  not  to  have  pastor 
Johnson  quote  the  Acts  in  connexion  with 
John  the  Baptist. 

But  the  author  could  not  avoid,  in  such 
a  work,  touching  upon  so  well  known  a 
passage,  and  he  therefore  introduces  it  in 
the  next  chapter  of  his  book,  after  he  had, 
as  he  hoped,  broken  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment from  it,  by  deceiving  his  readers  con- 
cerning the  usage  and  meaning  of  the  pre- 
position. On  page  97,  pastor  Johnson  is 
represented  as  employing  the  argument  we 
have  stated  above ;  that  the  prediction  con- 
cerning the  baptism  iwitK>  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  seen  in  the  second  chapter  of  Acts,  to  be 
fulfilled  by  'pouring  out1  and  ' 'shedding;  forth,'1 
Hence  the  inference  that  water  baptism  was 
by  the  same  mode.  And  what,  does  the 
reader  suppose  is  the  Immersionist's  re- 
ply? On  page  98,  Miss  Theodosia  explains 
the  case  thus: 

"As  Christ  had  told  James  and  John  that 
they  should  be  immersed  or  overwhelmed 
by  sufferings  and  sorrows,  so  now  he  tells 
all  the  disciples  that  they  shall  in  a  few 
days  be  immersed  or  overwhelmed  by  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     That  these 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  3T 

influences  should  cover,  overpower,  and 
swallow  up  their  minds,  as  the  water  in  bap- 
tism did  their  bodies.  It  is  no  more  a  lite- 
ral baptism,  than  the  baptism  of  suffering 
in  Matthew.  It  is  a  metaphor;  and  the 
allusion  is  not  to  the  act  done  in  baptism, 
so  much  as  to  the  result;  that  is,  the  swal- 
lowing up  and  overwhelming  of  their  minds 
by  the  flood  of  life,  and  light,  and  joy,  and 
heavenly  influence  which  that  day  came 
upon  their  souls."  On  page  99,  the  fair, 
(yet  most  unfair)  polemic  strengthens  her 
position  by  saying:  "The  Holy  Spirit  can- 
not be  literally  poured  out  or  sprinkled  out, 
nor  could  the  disciples  be  literally  immersed 
in  him  any  more  than  they  had  already  been; 
for  He  is,  and  always  was,  every  where 
present  and  had  always  surrounded  them  on 
every  side,"  &c. 

The  first  thing  to  be  noticed  in  this  pre- 
cious piece  of  exposition,  is  the  complete- 
ness with  which  Theodosia  tangles  herself 
in  her  own  net.  She  is  very  careful  to 
show  that  the  baptism  'in?  (as  she  will  have 
it,)  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  a  thorough  "covering 
up"  a  "swallowing  up,"  of  the  Apostles. 
But,  if  the  whole  thing  is  merely  a  meta- 
phor, and  contains  no  "allusion  to  the  act 
done  in  baptism,"  why  need  she  care  wheth- 


38  REVIEW    OF 

er  the  application  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a 
pouring  or  a  covering  up?  She  knows  she 
is  not  telling  the  truth,  when  she  says  there 
is  no  allusion  to  the  mode;  and  hence  her 
anxiety  to  make  that  mode  a  dipping  as 
nearly  as  possible.  The  reasoning  is  as 
perfect  a  jewel  of  consistency  as  that  of  the 
old  lady,  who  being  charged  with  cracking 
a  borrowed  kettle,  asserted  first  that  the 
kettle  was  not  cracked  at  all,  and  second 
that  it  was  already  cracked  when  she  got  it. 
See  also  Mr.  Courtney,  pp.  151,  152. 

Next,  is  there  not  a  spice  of  impiety  and 
infidelity  in  asserting,  in  the  teeth  of  the 
word  of  God,  that  there  was  no  literal  bap- 
tism at  all,  but  only  a  'mere  metaphor?' 
If  this  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not 
a  literal  reality,  then  several  things,  oh 
Theodosia,  inevitably  follow;  as  for  instance, 
that  the  predictions  of  John  the  Baptist  and 
Christ  were  false;  that  the  Apostles  received 
no  spiritual  qualifications  and  authority  for 
setting  up  the  new  dispensation,  for  legislat- 
ing for  the  church,  and  for  completing  the 
canon  of  Scripture;  which  would  leave  thee, 
unhappy  maid,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  us  un- 
dipped Christians,  in  rather  a  sorry  case. 
No,  you  should  have  said,  if  you  had  been 
as  thorough   a   dialectician  as  dipper;  that 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  39 

there  was  here  no  material  baptism;  although 
there  was  a  literal  and  real  baptism  of  spirit- 
ual influences.  But  then,  inasmuch  as  ma- 
terial, water  baptism  is  but  a  symbolical 
rite,  in  which  the  signiflcancy  depends 
wholly  on  the  faithfulness  with  which  it  re- 
presents to  the  senses  the  spiritual  reality; 
and  inasmuch  as  the  Holy  Spirit  was  pleased 
to  use  the  very  word,  baptism,  of  this  literal 
and  real,  spiritual  blessing;  it  is  God's  own 
definition  of  baptism  as  a  pouring  out  of  the 
element  on  the  person  baptized. 

Again,  when  Miss  Theodosia  argues  that 
it  could  not  be  a  literal  pouring,  because 
the  disciples  were  always  equally  surround- 
ed by  the  omnipresent  essence  of  God  the 
Spirit,  this  fact,  if  it  proves  any  thing, 
equally  proves  that  it  could  not  be  an  im- 
mersion. Why  then  did  she  trouble  her- 
self, seeing  she  acknowledges  this  in  ex- 
press words  on  page  99,  to  argue  on  page 
88,  that  the  figure  was  expressive  of  ''cover- 
ing upV  It  would  not  be  expressive  of 
mode  at  all. 

But  on  page  101,  she  proceeds  to  cap  the 
climax  of  self-contradictions  by  introducing 
that  famous  passage,  Rom.  vi :  3,  and  claim- 
ing that  the  "burial  with  Christ  by  bap- 
tism,"  clearly   proves  immersion   was   the 


40  REVIEW  OF 

mode  of  water  baptism.  Where  now  is  the 
argument  that  a  figurative  reference  can 
prove  nothing  as  to  mode,  because  it  is 
"merely  a  metaphor?''  The  same  pretty 
mouth  which  then  blew  hot,  now  blows  cold. 
In  Acts,  where  a  'pouring  down  of  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  expressly  called 
a  baptism,  there  can  be  no  indication  of  the 
mode  of  water  baptism.  But  in  Eomans, 
where  Christians  are  figuratively  said  (for 
in  this  case  the  burial  is  only  figurative)  to 
be  "buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  "(It  is 
not  said  that  the  baptism  was  the  burial, 
but  only  its  sign,)  there  forsooth,  the  allu- 
sion to  immersion  is  indisputable !  Nay, 
verily,  you  shall  not  thus  play  fast  and  loose 
with  us,  at  the  convenience  of  your  inconsis- 
tent theory.  Fie  on  you,  fair  Sophist;  Or, 
we  should  rather  say;  Fie  on  the  author,  for 
filling  the  lips  of  his  lovely  heroine  with  such 
a  batch  of  absurdities. 

As  we  have  thus  introduced  Rom.  vi:  3 — 
we  may  as  well  call  the  reader's  attention 
to  a  remark  of  the  veracious  pedagogue, 
Courtney  at  the  bottom  of  page  154,  "That 
the  allusion  here  is  to  the  act  of  immersion 
is  so  evident  that  none  but  t!ie  most  deter- 
mined and  unreasonable  cavillers  pretend 
to  deny  it.     I  do  not  know  of  any  single 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  41 

commentator,  whose  opinions  are  entitled  to 
any  respect,  who  has  ventured  to  differ  in 
regard  to  this  point  from  Luther  and  Cal- 
vin, and  Doddridge  and  McKnight,  and 
Chalmers — who  all  agree  that  the  allusion 
is  to  the  ancient  form  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion," &c.  Now  will  not  the  reader  be  sur- 
prised, when  he  learns  that  it  is  utterly  false, 
that  Calvin  in  his  commentary  on  this  pas- 
sage, "agrees"  to  any  such  thing?  There 
is  not  one  word  in  his  whole  remarks,  which 
even  implies  such  an  admission  ;  and  their 
whole  tenor  strongly  implies  the  contrary. 
TV  ell,  before  we  are  done  with  Mr.  Court- 
ney, the  reader  will  cease  to  be  surprised 
at  any  thing  which  he  asserts.  But  again : 
the  learned  pedagogue  "does  not  know  of 
any  single  commentator,  whose  opinions  are 
entitled  to  any  respect,"  that  dares  to  differ 
from  him  on  this  point.  We  can  inform 
him  and  his  readers,  that  both  Beza  and 
Brown,  of  Haddington,  Calvin  and  Henry, 
and  Scott  and  Hodge,  and  Stuart  and  Hal- 
dane,  the  eight  commentaries  which  we 
happened  to  have  at  hand,  all  differ  from 
him;  and  expressly  or  tacitly  discard  his 
view  of  the  passage.  No  doubt  a  little  ex- 
amination might  increase  the  number  to 
twenty.     Shall   we  conclude  that  the  opin- 


42  review  or 

ions  of  these  eminent  men  "are  entitled  to 
no  respect ;  or  that  they  were  not  known  to 
Mr.  Courtney's  ignorance.  The  public  will 
judge.  As  Dr.  Scott  has  been  mentioned, 
it  may  be  added  that  this  well  known  and 
judicious  writer,  in  a  few  simple  lines  effec- 
tually refutes  the  idea  that  the  passage 
contains  any  reference  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism. He  shows  that  not  water  baptism, 
nor  its  mode,  but  that  union  to  Christ  which 
it  signifies,  is  the  thing  upon  which  the 
Apostle  reasons,  in  order  to  prove  that  he 
who  truly  partakes  of  Christ's  justifying 
righteousness  will  also  certainly  partake  of 
His  deadness  to  sin,  so  that  introducing  a 
reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism  here  really 
spoils  the  beauty  of  the  Apostle's  meaning. 
And  then,  if  burial,  the  first  of  the  three 
figures  by  which  our  spiritual  baptism  into 
Christ  is  here  illustrated,  must  be  interpre- 
ted as  indicating  the  mode  of  water  bap- 
tism, the  other  two  figures  ought,  in  all  con- 
sistency to  be  so  interpreted  likewise,  so  as 
to  make  our  water  baptism  not  only  like  a 
burial,  but  like  a  planting,  and  like  a  cru- 
cifixion. We  suggest  to  our  Immersionist 
neighbors  that  they  shall  amend  their  sec- 
tarian psalmody,  so  as  to  sing  not  only 
about  the   "liquid  grave,"  but  also  about 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  43 

the  "liquid  soil,"  and  the  "liquid  cross  and 
nails." 

6.  Another  specimen  of  false  issues  may 
be  found  in  the  manner  in  which  the  fishy 
Uncle  Jones  is  made  to  state  the  argument 
against  immersion  from  the  baptism  of  the 
three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost; 
page  114,  &c.  (Of  the  false  citations  here, 
more  hereafter.)  The  good  Uncle  suspends 
the  question  chiefly  on  these  two  points, 
that  there  was  not  water  enough  accessible, 
nor  time  enough  for  twelve  men  to  immerse 
three  thousand  persons.  To  these  two 
points  Theodosia  replies,  that  there  was 
plenty  of  water;  and  proves  it  to  her  own 
satisfaction  (by  false  quotations.)  She  then 
argues  (page  116  )  that  they  were  not  all 
baptized  the  first  day  ;  and  then  proves  that 
they  were  all  baptized  the  first  day  by  the 
Twelve;  and  that  with  ease.  She  must  re- 
concile her  own  contradictions;  we  cannot. 
But  the  author  takes  excellent  care  not  to 
let  foolish  Uncle  Jones  utter,  what  is  the 
decisive  point  in  the  argument :  that  even 
if  two  hundred  and  fifty  adults  could  be 
immersed  in  one  afternoon,  one  by  one; 
(This  being  the  number  which  would  have 
fallen  to  each  of  the  Twelve,)  one  man  could 
not  immerse  two   hundred  and  fifty  adults 


44  REVIEW   OF 

in  immediate  succession,  without  being  com- 
pletely exhausted.  Dipping  is  excessively 
hard  work,  to  subject  and  operator;  (Is  not 
its  popularity  with  self-righteous  mind3  due 
to  this?)  and  it  is  therefore  mere  trickery 
for  the  author  to  tell  us  that  twenty  persons 
can  be  immersed  in  fifteen  minutes;  (page 
118,)  when  every  Immersionist  preacher 
knows,  after  a  half-hour  of  such  work,  he  is 
so  thoroughly  exhausted,  that  he  must  come 
out  of  the  water. 

The  reasonableness  of  this  assertion,  that 
three  thousand  adults  could  find  the  means 
of  an  extemporary  immersion  in  Jerusalem, 
in  one  afternoon,  may  be  brought  to  a  very 
practical  test.  Well  watered  as  the  City  of 
Eichmond  is,  with  water-pipes,  creeks,  and 
wells;  was  there  ever  a  "Baptizing"  of  any 
extent,  among  our  modern  Immersionists 
there,  before  baptisteries  were  expressly 
provided  in  their  churches,  that  they  were 
not  compelled  to  adjourn  to  the  noble 
James?  Now  if  Richmond  did  not  afford 
the  means  of  giving  an  extempore  dip  to  a 
company  of  twenty  or  thirty  converts,  is  it 
even  plausible  to  assert,  that  Jerusalem,  in 
a  most  dry  climate  and  season,  could  pro- 
vide them  for  three  thousand?  It  had  no 
great  river  running  just  outside  of  its  walls. 


THEODOSTA   EARNEST.  45 

Outside,  it  was  dry ;  (says  Dr.  Kobinson,) 
so  totally  dry,  that  every  besieging  army 
which  has  surrounded  it  has  had  to  bring 
its  water  from  a  distance.  Within,  it  had 
sufficient  rain  water  cisterns  and  open  re- 
servoirs, to  supply  the  population  with  wa- 
ter for  domestic  purposes. 

7.  On  the  207th  and  following  pages  of 
Theodosia,  the  reader  will  find  a  similar  in- 
stance, affecting  the  argument  for  the  far 
more  important  doctrine  of  infant  baptism. 
Silly  old  Mr.  Johnson  is  represented  as  ad- 
vancing the  instance  of  Christ's  blessing 
infants,  (recorded  in  Matt,  xix:  13,  14; 
Mark  x:  13,  &c;  Luke  xviii :  15.  &c.,)  in 
proof  of  their  title  to  baptism.  The  courte- 
ous Courtney  replies ;  page  208. 

"I  can't  see  one  word  about  baptism  in  it." 

"Oh,"  (says  the  pastor,)  I  do  not  say  that 
baptism  is  expressly  named  in  it;  but  sir,  the 
inference  is  irresistible,  that  these  children 
were  brought  to  be  baptized,  and  that  the 
people  were  accustomed  to  bring  their  chil- 
dren for  that  purpose,  and  that  Jesus  com- 
manded his  disciples  never  to  forbid  it,  as 
you  Baptists  have  done,  but  to  suffer  the 
little  children  to  come  to  him,  and  make  a 
part  of  his  visible  church." 

Thus  the  author  deceitfully  represents, 


46  REVIEW   OF 

that  this  is  the  main  argument  which 
Presbyterians  found  on  this  passage;  when 
he  knew  perfectly  well,  that  the  use  which 
all  intelligent  Paadobaptists  make  of  the 
passage  is  totally  different,  that  they  do  not 
undertake  to  prove  here  that  those  infants 
were  baptized  by  Christ;  for  indeed,  they 
do  not  believe  that  Christian  baptism  was 
yet  instituted.  Of  course  any  juggling  chop- 
per of  logic  can  win  an  apparent  victory,  by 
thus  putting  into  the  mouth  of  imaginary 
adversary  a  false  and  foolish  issue,  and 
then  refuting  it.  But  what  must  be  his 
impudent  contempt  for  readers  whom  he 
expects  to  gull  by  so  coarse  a  trick !  The 
true  manner  in  which  Psedobaptists  argue 
from  this  passage  is  this:  That  it  is  impious 
to  suppose  this  blessing  of  Christ  futile,  or 
misplaced,  or  inoperative.  So  that,  here  is 
a  total  refutation  given  by  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self to  the  main  rational  objection  of  Im- 
mersionists  against  infant  baptism.  Their 
objection  is,  that  it  is  absurd  to  administer 
a  religious  rite  to  a  little  senseless  infant ; 
because  he  is  too  young  to  profit  by  it.  But 
here  Jesus  Christ  administers  a  religious 
rite,  which  undoubtedly  was  profitable  to 
infants.  The  objection  is  swept  away.  Here 
we  see  that  the  grace  of  God  can  benefit  in- 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  47 

fants.  If  they  can  partake  gospel  blessings, 
(as  all  must,  who  die  in  infancy,  unless  we 
are  willing  to  teach  infant  damnation,) 
where  is  the  absurdity  of  their  partaking  in 
gospel  ordinances,  should  God  so  ordain? 
Between  pages  206,  207,  of  Theodosia, 
the  publishers  have  introduced  two  wood 
cuts,  which  they  doubtless  thought  very 
witty,  exhibiting  as  they  supposed,  the  ab- 
surdity of  administering  the  water  of  bap- 
tism to  a  little  squalling,  frightened  baby. 
Kow  we  suggest  that  in  their  next  edition, 
they  substitute  another  subject  for  pictorial 
satire,  which  every  one  will  perceive  to  be 
precisely  as  just  and  appropriate,  as  this 
burlesque  cut  of  an  infant  baptism.  It 
should  represent  the  folly  of  the  pious  Jew- 
ish mothers,  in  bringing  their  little  sense- 
less babies  to  be  blessed  by  our  Redeemer, 
when  they  were  too  young  to  comprehend 
his  language  or  acts:  and  should  exhibit 
them  frightened  nearly  into  fits  by  the 
strange  actions  of  the  strange  man,  Jesus; 
and  struggling  back  out  of  his  arms  into 
their  mothers,'  with  their  faces  distorted 
with  screams.  We  propose  to  Messrs. 
Graves,  Marks  &  Co.,  to  try  their  hands  at 
this  :  then  perhaps  the  world  will  compre- 


48  REVIEW   OF 

hend  whether  their  present  caricatures  are 
witty  or  impious. 

But  our  main  inference  is  more  important 
still.  Our  Saviour  defends  his  blessing 
them,  by  saying  :  "For  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  That  is:  He  has  blessed 
them  because,  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  To  give  to  the  words  ' kingdom  of 
heaven'  here,  any  other  sense  than  that  of 
Christ's  Church,  makes  absolute  nonsense  : 
(as  even  the  audacious  Courtney  does  not 
venture  to  deny,  when  on  page  209,  he  al- 
ludes in  a  meagre  and  partial  manner  to 
this  argument.)  Our  Saviour,  then,  express- 
ly calls  infants  a  portion  of  his  church.  But 
as  all  admit  that  baptism  is  the  initiatory 
ordinance  by  which  members  enter  the 
church,  infants  who  are  church  members 
are  of  course  entitled  to  baptism.  This 
argument  the  author  takes  good  care  not 
to  state  fairly.  (We  do  it  for  him.)  He 
does  indeed  endeavor  to  parry  it,  by  saying 
that  our  Saviour  does  not  say  infants  belong 
to  his  church,  but  that  persons  who  would 
truly  enter  it  must  be  such  as  infants ;  that 
is,  must  be  lowly,  harmless  and  amiable. 
And  this  interpretation  he  professes  to  sup- 
port by  the  concessions  of  two  Peedobap- 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  49 

tists.  Barnes  and  Olsbausen.  If  Mr.  Court- 
ney had  bad  the  honesty  to  quote  all  that 
Mr.  Barnes  says,  in  his  notes  on  Matt,  xix: 
13,  14,  the  reader  would  have  seen  that  his 
remarks  (ill  judged  and  uncritical;  as  Barnes 
often  is.)  give  the  Immersionist  no  support. 
For  Mr.  Barnes  also  says  substantially  that 
the  Jews  had  always  been  accustomed  to 
bring  their  children  to  God  by  circumci- 
sion, and  therefore  it  did  not  seem  to  them 
unnatural  to  bring  them  now  to  Christ.  As 
for  Olshausen,  a  German  Rationalist,  be  he 
bepraised  or  not  bj  injudicious  Englishmen 
and  Americans,  we  suspect  we  know  much 
more  about  him  than  Mr.  Courtney.  Does 
Mr.  Courtney  say  that  he  endorses  him  as 
CJrrect  and  reliable?  If  he  does  not,  he 
has  no  business  to  quote  his  interpretation 
as  authority.  If  he  does,  then  we  tell  him 
that  he  has  endorsed  a  batch  of  theological 
errors,  which  would  result  justly  in  his  ex- 
pulsion froai  any  respectable  Immersionist 
church.  When  will  this  author  learn,  that 
Presbvterians  do  not  hold  themselves  re- 
sponsible for  the  false  glosses  of  commen- 
tators, rationalistic  or  pious?  We  interpret 
the  Scriptures  for  ourselves,  [diligently 
using  all  helps,  indeed]  in  the  exercise  of 
common  sense  and  the  fear  of  God.  But 
i 


50  KEVIEW  OF 

if  quoting  learned  names  is  worth  anything, 
we  might  quote  great  men,  from  Calvin 
down  to  Dr.  Rudolph  Stier,  a  German,  too, 
and  a  more  recent  and  learned  expositor 
than  Olshausen,  who  expressly  contradict 
the  latter.  (See  for  instance,  Stier's  words 
of  Jesus,  edition  of  T.  T.  Clark,  Edinburg, 
vol.  3,  p.  21.) 

But,  away  with  all  this:  let  the  reader 
fairly  consider  the  words  of  our  Saviour 
under  remark,  for  himself:  he  will  see  that 
they  must  be  interpreted  as  we  have  done 
above.  The  plain  reasons  are  as  follows. 
"When  Christ  says:  "Of  such  are  the  king- 
dom,'7 the  word  isuch>  must  be  fairly  un- 
derstood to  mean  the  infants  and  persons 
resembling  them.  It  does  not  exclude  the 
former.  For  this  is  its  common  meaning 
in  the  gospels.  When  for  instance  Luke 
says,  Acts  xxii:  22,  that  the  Jews,  about  to 
attempt  St.  Paul's  life,  "'lifted  up  their  voices 
and  said  ;  away  with  such  a  fellow  from  the 
earth;"  does  any  one  suppose  they  meant, 
not  Paul,  but  other  persons  resembling  Paul? 
No,  it  is  as  though  they  had  said;  "Away 
with  this  fellow  from  the  earth."  Let  the 
reader  also  examine  Matt,  ix:  8,  xviii :  5; 
Mark  vi:  2,  ix :  37;  Luke  ix :  9,  xiii :  2; 
John  iv:  23,  ix:  16;  Acts  xvi:  24,  &c.     It 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  51 

is  needless  to  multiply  cases.  So  in  our 
text;  when  Christ  says :  "Of  such  is  the 
kingdom,"  his  fair  meaning  is  :  "Of  THESE 
(in  part,)  is  the  kingdom."  That  this  was 
his  meaning  is  proved,  second  by  this:  that 
the  other  idea,  of  presenting  little  ones  as 
symbols  or  resemblances  of  what  a  Chris- 
tian should  be,  is  out  of  place  here,  because 
Matthew  has  a  little  before  recorded  Christ's 
use  of  that  comparison.  In  Matt,  xviii:  2, 
4,  "Jesus  called  a  little  child,  and  set  him 
in  the  midst,  and  said ;  except  ye  be  con- 
verted, and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
That  matter  having  been  so  lately  recorded, 
it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  sacred 
writer  meant  no  more  by  introducing  a  new 
and  different  incident.  Bat  third,  and  chief- 
ly :  If  it  is  said  that  Christ  put  his  hands 
on  children  and  blessed  them,  only  because 
their  infantile  state  is  a  pretty  illustration  of 
what  the  Christian  character  should  be,  his 
act  and  language  are  turned  into  sheer  non- 
sense. God  often  compares  his  Christians 
to  sheep  and  sometimes  to  doves.  Is  this  a 
reason  why  Christ  should  take  up  young 
lambs  into  his  arms  and  bless  them?  Noth- 
ing but  the  utmost  heedlessness,  or  most 
stubborn  prejudice,  could  ever  lead  anyone 


52  REVIEW   OF 

to  put  such  an  argument  in  the  Saviour's 
mouth.  That  they  aptly  symbolized  true 
subjects  of  his  kingdom  is  no  reason  what- 
ever why  they  should  be  suffered  to  come 
to  him  and  receive  his  divine  blessing.  That 
they  were  themselves  among  the  subjects  of 
his  kingdom  was  a  good  reason  why  they 
should  receive  his  blessing.  But  if  some 
infants'  are  members  of  his  church,  some 
infants  should  receive  baptism,  the  acknowl- 
edged mark  of  membership. 

8.  We  shall  find  another  glaring  instance 
of  sophistry  on  pages  236,  &c;  where  Court- 
ney is  introduced  as  discussing  with  Mr. 
Johnson  the  argument  from  household  bap- 
tisms in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 
After  professing  to  convince  himself,  by  a 
series  of  perversions  of  scripture,  and  hardy 
assertions  without  evidence,  that  none  of 
the  families  baptized  by  the  Apostles  or 
their  order  happened  to  have  infants  in 
them,  the  irate  pedagogue  proceeds  :  (page 
235,  bottom  ) 

'•But  I  am  not  willing  to  pass  so  readily 
from  these  passages.  You  are  accustomed, 
Mr.  Johnson,  and  so  are  all  your  ministers, 
to  present  these  as  proof  texts  for  infant 
baptism.  You  will  probably  go  and  do  it 
again  :  though  I  pray   that   God  may   give 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  53 

you  a  better  mind."  (Very  charitable, 
most  meek  master ;  to  pray  that  we  may 
not  be  given  up  to  the  enormous  wicked- 
ness of  saving  that  God's  word  means  a 
given  thing,  after  your  infallibility  has  pro- 
nounced that  it  does  not!)  "They  stand  as 
proof  texts  in  your  'Confession  of  Faith ;' 
and  yet  in  truth,  neither  they  nor  you  have 
ever  believed  them  to  be  such,  or  else  you  are 
more  inconsistent  in  your  conduct  than  sen- 
sible men  are  often  found  to  be."  (Oh 
courteous  Courtney!) 

He  then  proceeds  to  say  that,  if  these  in- 
stances of  household  baptism  were  believed 
by  us  to  prove  any  thing,  we  should  also 
baptize  all  the  domestics  and  adult  children, 
slaves  and  even  wives,  on  the  faith  of  the 
father.  As  we  "do  not  dare"  to  do  this ; 
it  shows  that  even  we  do  not  truly  find  any 
evidence  here  for  infant  baptism. 

Now  our  first  remark  on  this  angry  de- 
monstration is:  that  it  proceeds  on  this  pos- 
tulate :  That  no  man  is  to  be  supposed  to 
be  sincerely  convinced  of  a  principle,  ex- 
cept he  acts  it  out  consistently  "?  That  is; 
partial  inconsistency  with  one's  own  princi- 
ples sincerely  held,  is  never  seen  among 
sensible  men!  Well,  by  this  way  of  argu- 
ing,  we   shall    prove  that  the    Courtney's 


54  REVIEW   OP 

"pure  mind"  has  never  truly  seen  or  felt 
any  evidence  for  the  propositions,  that  rail- 
ing, false  witness,  and  malignity  towards 
brethren,  are  sins.  For  he  is  indubitably 
found  indulging  pretty  freely  in  all  three 
practices  in  these  pages.  Again  :  we  shall 
prove  that  Immersionists  usually  "have 
never  believed''  what  they  themselves  say, 
when  they  teach  that  dipping  a  believer  is 
the  only  valid  baptism.  For  if  they  really 
believed  it,  consistency  would  require  them 
to  hold  that  nobody  but  Immersionists  are 
church  members,  that  consequently,  there 
are  no  churches  except  theirs ;  and  that 
consequently  Pgedobaptist  ministers  are  no 
ministers  at  all ;  and  their  preaching  is 
nothing  but  impudent  presumption.  Where- 
as in  fact,  Immersionists  usually  treat  Pse- 
dobaptist  churches  practically  as  true 
churches,  everywhere  except  at  the  Lord's 
Table;  and  are  usually  very  glad  to  have 
Presbyterian  ministers  preach  for  them,  in 
seasons  of  revival.  Why,  oh  consistent 
Courtney,  is  not  the  one  argument  as  good 
as  the  other  ? 

But  our  second  remark  is:  that  according 
to  the  Jewish  institution  of  circumcising 
households,  no  kind  of  servants,  domestics, 
or  retainers  were  allowed  to  be  circumcised 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  55 

upon  the  faith  of  their  masters,  except 
literal  slaves  belonging  to  the  masters.  See 
Exodus  xii:  44,  45.  Now,  as  we  suppose 
the  Abrahamic  institution  to  be  still  sub- 
stantially in  force,  none  but  slaves  could  by 
any  construction,  even  the  loosest,  be  em- 
braced in  "  the  household."  The  objec- 
tion, therefore,  applies  to  none  but  Paedo- 
baptist  slaveholders  in  these  Southern  States; 
a  very  small  corner  of  Pasdobaptist  Christ- 
endom. In  every  other  part  of  the  world, 
the  incautious  Courtney  would  find  his  no- 
table demonstration  worthless.  But  now 
if  Paedobaptism  is  a  sound  doctrine  all 
over  Christendom  except  among  American 
slaveholders,  we  pray  does  the  inconsisten- 
cy of  that  little  fragment  make  it  unsound 
to  all  the  world  ?  As  to  the  case  of  the 
wife,  whom  Mr.  Courtney  thinks,  we  ought 
to  baptize,  though  unbelieving,  on  the 
faith  of  the  husband,  we  remark  that  wo- 
men, under  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  were 
not  circumcised  at  all.  But  more :  the 
Jews  could  not  lawfully  have  a  wife  who 
was  not  also  a  member  of  the  visible 
church  ;  for  he  was  not  allowed  to  marry 
any  other. — See  Nehemiah  xxiii :  23 — 27. 
In  the  institution  from  which  we  suppose 
11  household  baptisms  "  arose,   such  a  case 


58  REVIEW   OF 

as  Mr.  Courtney  imagines  conld  not  arise ; 
and,  therefore,  the  Apostles  naturally  would 
not  baptize  the  unbelieving  wife  on  the 
faith  of  the  husband,  even  though  they 
baptize  the  children.^ 

Onee  more ;  the  polemical  pedagogue 
studiously  keeps  out  of  view  the  fact,  that 
Presbyterians  usually  show  from  the  Scrip- 
tures that  in  every  case  of  "household 
baptism,"  it  was  the  oikos  which  was  bap- 
tized on  the  faith  of  the  father,  and  not 
the  oikia ;  the  family  proper,  and  not  the 
household  !  And  we  prove,  by  unmistake- 
able  usage,  New  Testament,  and  classic, 
that  the  Greek  writers  of  that  age,  usually 
made  the  distinction  irr  the  use  of  the  two 
words.  The  oikos,  in  its  literal  sense  was 
the  dwelling  proper  of  the  husband,  wife, 
and  offspring;  and  in  its  derived,  or  figu- 
rative sense,  it  was  the  family  strictly  ;  that 
is,  the  children.  The  oikia  was  the  pre- 
mises  or  curtilage  (including  outhouses, 
barn,  stables,)  in  its  literal  sense,  and 
hence,  in  its  figurative  sense,  embraced 
both  children  and  dependents.  That  the 
English  version  does  not  make  this  dis- 
tinction apparent,  is  no  fault  of  ours. — 
Now,  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not  said  that  any 
oikia  was  baptized  in  the   New  Testament 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  57 

on  the  faith  of  its  head  ;  but  it  has  said 
that  the  oikos  was.  This  is  the  reason  of 
the  conduct  which  the  indignant  Courtney 
considers  so  inconsistent  in  us  Presbyte- 
rians. "  Ah,  but,"  he  urges  :  "  You  don't 
baptize  the  adult  children  on  the  faith  of 
the  father!"  and  yet  they  belong  to  the 
oikos,  as  well  as  the  oikia.  Well,  perhaps 
if  patriarchal  government  still  subsisted  in 
the  world,  as  it  did  among  the  Hebrews  ; 
so  that  the  pious  father  had  the  means  of 
securing  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace, 
and  a  religious  life,  from  his  adult  children, 
we  would  baptize  them  also.  But  in  a 
country  like  ours,  where  both  custom  and. 
law  make  the  adults  social  equals  to  their 
parents,  we  submit,  they  hardly  form  a  part 
of  the  oikos,  in  the  Abrahamic  sense. — 
Presbyterians  are  not  quite  so  easily 
caught,  Oh,  sapient  schoolmaster !  They 
have  thought  over  these  things  before  you 
were  born. 

9.  We  shall  conclude  this  part  of  our  re- 
view, by  referring  the  reader  to  an  admis- 
sion made  by  the  author's  mouth  piece,  on 
page  292.  By  this  time,  the  tishiness  of 
Uncle  Jones  is  developed  into  a  positive 
aquatic  propensity  ;  he  has  pretty  much 
made  up  his  mind  to  go  under  the  water — 


58  REVIEW   OF 

but  the  church  session  to  which  he  belongs, 
and  his  colleagues  in  the  Presbyterian 
Faculty,  have  been  remonstrating  and  argu- 
ing with  him.  His  prompter  (the  ever  prompt 
psedagogue,)  is  listening  to  his  account  of 
the  conversation,  and  advising  the  proper 
replies  to  their  arguments.  Concerning 
the  well  known  and  irrefragable  arguments 
that  as  children  were  embraced  under  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  and  as  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  still  subsists,  children  are  of 
course,  to  be  included,  until  a  positive  en- 
actment is  given  from  the  Head  of  the 
Church  excluding  them;  this  reply  is  ad- 
vised.—(p.  292.) 

'•  I  should  have  said  to  them  further  : 
Gentlemen,  you  call  the  Jewish  nation  the 
Church  of  God — and  tell  us  that  the  Chris- 
tian Church  is  the  same  under  a  different 
dispensation.  But  Christ  calls  the  nation 
the  world  in  opposition  to  his  Church.  The 
disciples  to  whom  Christ  spake,  (John  xv  : 
19.)  were  men  in  good  and  regular  stand- 
ing in  the  Jewish  nation,  which  you  call  the 
Church.  Yet  Christ  says:  '  I  have  chosen 
you  out  of  the  world;  and,  therefore,  the 
world,  (that  is  the  Jewish  nation,)  hateth 
you.'  *  *  *  The  cases  of  Nicodemus  and 
Paul  are  also  cited,   and  the  author  pro- 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  59 

ceeds:  "The  Jews  needed  conversion  as 
much  as  any,  before  they  could  make  any 
portion  of  the  Church  of  God.  This  Church 
God  set  up  for  the  first  time  when  John  be- 
gan to  preach.  There  were  good  men, 
pious,  devoted  men  among  the  Jews,  but 
they  were  not  gathered  into  a  church.  The 
Jewish  nation  had  some  religious  privileges; 
but  it  was  not  in  the  gospel  sense  a  church?"* 
We  have  quoted  these  repetitious  state- 
ments at  large,  that  the  reader  may  see 
how  fully  and  emphatically  it  is  asserted 
that  God  had  no  church  in  the  world,  till 
the  days  of  John  Baptist.  But  before  we 
proceed  to  the  use  which  we  intend  to  make 
of  this  fatal  admission,  let  us  sweep  away 
the  little  cobweb  of  argument  founded  on 
our  Saviour's  words  to  his  disciples  :  •*  I 
have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world"  One 
remark  accomplishes  tnis — that  the  argu- 
ment assumes  the  point  in  debate.  If  the 
Church  of  the  New  Testament  is  such  that 
worldly — that  is  unconverted  people  cannot 
be  in  it,  then  it  follows  that  Christ  would 
not  speak  of  choosing  out  of  the  world,  one 
of  its  members.  But  to  assume  that 
Christ's  Church  is  such,  is  the  very  thing 
which  remains  to  be  proved,  by  the  exclu- 
sive advocate    of  u  believer's   baptism." — 


60  REVIEW   OF 

Let  us  see  how  far  this  notable  argument 
would  cut.  In  Phil,  iii  :  18,  Paul  says; 
"  For  many  walk,  of  whom  I  have  told  you 
often,  and  now  tell  you  even  weeping,  that 
they  are  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ, 
whose  end  is  destruction,  whose  god  is  their 
belly,  and  whose  glory  is  in  their  shame, 
who  mind  earthly  (worldly)  things."  We 
rather  think  that,  had  Christ  chosen  to  call 
one  of  these  professors  to  true  conversion, 
he  would  have  "chosen  them  out  of  the  world" 
Yet  they  were  also  members  already  of  the 
Phillipian  Christian  Society.  Therefore, 
that  society  was  not  a  Christian  Church  ! — 
Ah  !  true  enough  it  was  not  an  Immersion- 
ist  church. 

Again, — according  to  Mr.  Courtney  and 
all  his  brethren,  Peter  and  his  friends  were 
already  in  the  Church  (founded  by  John  the 
Baptist,)  when  Christ  first  called  them. — 
For  it  is  very  clear  that  if  John's  baptism 
of  them  is  admitted  not  to  be  christian 
baptism,  we  are  utterly  without  evidence 
that  Peter  was  ever  baptized  at  all,  and 
then  we  should  have  Peter,  in  this  very 
16th  chapter  of  John,  partaking  of  the 
first  Lord's  Supper,  administered  by  the 
hands  of  our  Saviour  himself,  while  Peter 
.was  still  unimmersed;  together  with  sundry 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  61 

other  consequences  enormous  and  dreadfnl 
in  the  Courtney's  eyes.  He  must  hold, 
therefore,  that  Peter  had  gotten  into  the 
church  "  through  the  door,"  by  the  help 
of  John  and  the  Jordan,  before  that  selec- 
tion of  him  by  Christ  to  which  our  Saviour 
refers.  Why  multiply  instances,  as  we 
easily  might  do!  In  one  word,  does  any 
body  deny  that,  in  true  gospel  churches 
there  may  usually  be  found  worldly  mem- 
bers ;  so  that  if  God's  grace  should  effectu- 
ally call  one  of  them  out  of  his  worldliness 
to  genuine  holiness,  his  conversion  might 
provoke  the  carnal  opposition  of  other  un- 
converted members  like  himself?  When 
God,  by  his  grace,  raised  up  Andrew  Ful- 
ler, to  preach  the  great  truth  in  the  Iminer- 
sionist  churches  of  Great  Britain  of  which 
he  was  a  member,  that  "  the  gospel  is  wor- 
thy of  all  acceptation  ;"  did  he  not  meet 
the  hatred  and  opposition  of  worldly,  Anti- 
nomian  members  of  that  denomination? — 
Therefore,  Mr.  Courtney  should  reason  be- 
cause there  was  worldliness  in  that  denomi- 
nation, to  hate  that  holy  man  when  follow- 
ing Christ's  call,  the  English  Immersionists 
were  not  a  true  church  !  This  is  the  con- 
sistent Courtney's  arguing,  not  ours. 

A  very   zealous  immersionist  lady  once 


62  REVIEW   OF 

told  us,  that  she  witnessed  a  conversational 
discussion  on  infant  baptism,  in  a  stage- 
coach, between  a  distinguished  Episcopal 
divine,  and  a  famous  Immersionist  cham- 
pion, (to  whom  we  recognize  the  indebted- 
ness of  the  author  of  Theodosia  in  this, 
and  other  lucky  loans.)  The  Episcopalian 
advanced  the  usual  argument  from  the  sub- 
stantial identity  of  the  Abrahamic,  with 
the  New  Testament  church.  The  Immer- 
sionist replied  by  saying:  "How  then 
could  our  Lord  say  to  Peter  and  his  breth- 
ren, ■  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world?1  " 
"  Whereupon,"  said  our  informant,  *'  the 
Episcopalian  was  struck  dumb  !"  We  sur- 
mised in  ourselves,  that  the  reason  was,  not 
that  the  marvellous  reply  was  unanswera- 
ble ;  but  that  politeness  forbade  its  being 
dealt  with  as  it  deserved,  and  that,  finding 
the  unscrupulous  character  of  his  antago- 
nist, he  wisely  concluded  to  discontinue  the 
discussion.  Similar  politeness,  of  course, 
forbade  us  from  exposing  the  nonsense  of 
the  argument  to  our  fair  friend  ;  so  that 
■we  left  her  in  unconscious  ignorance,  sup- 
posing that  it  was  as  unanswerable  to  us,  as 
to  the  Episcopal  divine. 

But  this  is    by    the    way.     We  beg  our 
readers  to  observe   that  this  favorite   Im- 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  63 

mersionist  advocate,  the  author  of  Theodo- 
sia,  has  found  it  necessary,  deliberately  to 
deny  the  existence  of  any  proper  Church  of 
God  in  the  earth  before  the  Christian  era. 
To  the  Jews,  he  says,  there  never  was  a 
Church.  Israel  was  only  a  nation,  not  a 
church  ;  and  in  Israel  there  was  no  proper 
church  !  Very  well ;  we  take  it  for  grant- 
ed that,  had  there  been  any  other  way  to 
evade  the  inevitable  result  of  our  argu- 
ment from  the  perpetuity  of  the  Gospel 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  the  cautious 
Courtney  would  not  have  resorted  to  this 
desperate  position.  We  accept  it,  there- 
fore, as  the  implied  (yet  clear)  admission 
of  the  highest  Immersionist  authorities, 
that  either  infant  baptism  is  right,  or  it 
must  be  denied  that  God  had  any  church 
among  the  Jews. 

Now  then,  let  us  see  how  directly  Im- 
mersionism  has  to  fly  into  the  teeth  of  the  ex- 
press word  of  God.  The  reader  of  the  Eng- 
lish Bible  sees  that  God's  professed  people 
are  called  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord."  Let  him  see  for 
instance,  how  the  word  is  used  in  Nehemiah 
xiii :  1 — Psalms  xxii ;  22 — Joel  ii  :  16. — 
In  these  places,  and  many  others,  the  Sep- 
tuagint    Greek   version   renders   it  church 


64  REVIEW   OP 

(flclcsia.)  Is  not  this  evidence  enough  that 
the  words  are  the  same  ;  that  the  Lord's 
congregation  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the 
Lord's  church?  But  again, — in  Actsvii: 
38,  the  inspired  Stephen  says,  speaking  of 
Moses  :  "  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church 
in  the  wilderness,"  &c.  In  Hebrews  ii : 
12,  the  Apostle  represents  David  as  say- 
ing, (in  the  Psalm  xxii :  22,)  *'  In  the 
midst  of  the church  will  I  sing  praise  unto 
Thee."  True,  if  the  English  reader  will 
turn  to  the  English  version  of  that  Psalm, 
he  will  find  the  word  congregation.  But  we 
presume    the    Apostle    knew    what     David 

meant  as  well,  at  least,  as  the  English  trans- 
is 

lators.  Again, — Hebrews  iii  :  5 — 6,  it  is 
said  :  "And  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all 
his  house,  as  a  servant,  for  a  testimony  of 
those  things  which  were  to  be  spoken  after  ; 
but  Christ  as  a  Son,  over  his  own  house, 
whose  house  are  we  if  we  ho'd  fast  the  con- 
fidence." Judicious  commentators,  for  in- 
stance, Dr.  Gill,  the  great  Immersiouist, 
agree  that  the  house  means  the  church,  in 
which  Moses  was  a  servant,  and  Christ  a 
Prince,  (being  the  King's  Son.)  and  to  this 
house  we  belong,  says  the  Apostle,  if  we  do 
not  apostatize.  So  then,  it  seems  there 
was  an    Old   Testament  church  ;  and   it  is 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  65 

that  which  New  Testament  believers  join  ! 
Once  more  ;  let  the  reader  examine  Rom. 
xiv  :  17 — 24,  and  he  will  find  the  Apostle 
presenting  these  ideas  in  substance  to  Gen- 
tile believers  :  the  one  common  church  of 
both  dispensations  is  a  good  olive  tree  ; 
from  which  the  rejected  Jews  were  broken 
off,  for  their  unbelief,  when  they  rejected 
and  crucified  Christ,  and  into  which  Gen- 
tiles were  engrafted.  But  at  length  Israel 
will  be  brought  into  the  church  again  ;  and 
this  will  be  a  re-engrafting  of  them  (at  the 
approach  of  the  millennium)  into  "  their 
own  olive  tree." 

But  perhaps  the  author  of  Theodosia 
may  avail  himself  of  the  plea,  (which  he 
so  strenuously  condemned,  when  trying  to 
make  baytizo  mean  dip  only ;)  that  the 
same  word  may  bave  more  than  one  mean- 
ing; so  Stephen's  calling  Israel  the  "church 
in  the  wilderness,"  may  not  necessarily 
prove  that  it  was  properly  a  church  in  the 
Bible  sense.  Verv  well :  by  what  attri- 
butes, or  marks,  can  a  society  be  identified 
as  a  church  of  God  ?  Is  a  church  a  body 
which  is  separated  by  profession  from  the 
world,  to  the  service  of  God  ?  So  was 
Israel.  Is  a  church  a  body  marked  by  the 
use  of  divinely  appointed  Sacraments  !  So 
5 


66  REVIEW   OF 

was  Israel.  It  had  its  circumcision  and 
passover.  Is  a  church  a  body  organized 
under  a  ministry  ?  So  was  Israel.  Does  a 
church  statedly  maintain  the  worship  of 
God  ?  So  did  Israel.  Is  a  church  a  school 
in  which  the  teaching  of  God's  revealed 
word  is  maintained  from  age  to  age  ?  So 
was  Israel.  See  Rom.  iii :  2.  Yea  more  : 
the  society  founded  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham enjoyed  that  most  peculiar  privilege  of 
the  Gospel  church,  the  preaching  of  the 
Go.«peL  St.  Paul  tells  us  (Gal.  iii:  8,) 
that  "  the  Scripture  preached  before  the 
Gospel  unto  Abraham."  Yea,  our  Saviour 
himself  says  :  "  Your  Father  Abraham  re- 
joiced to  see  my  day  ;  and  he  saw  it  and  was 
glad"  John  viii :  56.  So  that  Israel  has 
every  mark  of  a  true  church.  Yea,  of  be- 
ing the  true  Gospel  church,  except  this  :  it 
did  not  exclude  infants.  It  would  not 
stickle  for  "  believer's  baptism,"  (or  cir- 
cumcision.) There,  Mr.  Courtney,  is  the 
fatal  thing  which  unchurches  it,  in  your 
eyes !  But  whether  this  state  of  facts 
proves  that  Israel  was  no  church,  or  that 
you  are  wrong  in  your  dogma,  the  intelli- 
gent reader  may  decide. 

But  upon  what  age  of  the  world  have  we 
fallen,  that  there  should  be  occasion  for  a 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  67 

Christian  to  set  again  about  proving  that 
God  had  a  church  under  the  old  Dispensa- 
tion ?  We  seem  to  ourselves  to  have  gone 
back  three  hundred  years,  to  some  of  those 
"times  of  ignorance  which  God  winked 
at,"  when  the  Reformers  were  fast  emerg- 
ing from  the  mists  of  Popery,  and  had  all 
the  wildness  and  fanaticism  of  Anabaptism 
to  resist. 

10.  We  now  proceed  to  another  part  of  the 
work  which  we  proposed  to  ourselves,  for 
the  righteous  chastisement  of  this  wicked 
publication.  We  have  given  our  readers 
specimens  enough  of  its  false  and  dishonest 
arguing.  We  have  shown  them  in  a  num- 
ber of  instances,  that  the  seeming  triumph 
of  its  logic  is  procured  by  the  low  artifices 
of  raising  false  issues,  and  assuming  the 
point  in  debate.  So  we  might  extend  our 
refutations  and  exposures  throughout  the 
book,  till  the  reader  was  wearied  and  dis- 
gusted even  to  nausea,  with  the  exhibition 
of  such  unvarying  sophistry.  We  pause  in 
this  series  of  exposures,  not  because  mate- 
rial is  wanting  ;  but  because  we  believe  that 
every  reasonable  reader  is  sufficiently  sat- 
isfied of  the  recklessness  of  the  author, 
and  of  his  utter  unworthiness  to  be  trusted. 

We  shall  now  exhibit  in  a  number  of  in« 


68  REVIEW   OF 

stances,  selected  very  much  at  random,  the 
unprincipled  manner  in  which  historical 
facts,  and  literary  authorities  are  misrepre- 
sented, or  actually  falsified,  by  the  author. 
And  here  again  ;  we  would  assure  our  read- 
er that  we  do  not  expose  the  half  of  the 
instances  which  admit  and  deserve  such  ex- 
posure. We  spare  him  the  weariness  and 
disgust  of  such  an  exhibition.  Our  pur- 
pose is  only  to  give  instances  enough  to  en- 
able him  to  judge,  for  himself,  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  book  :  and  to  see  that  its 
facts  are  usually  as  false  as  its  arguments. 
Let  us,  in  this  connexion  remind  the  reader 
of  the  circumstance  already  noted,  that  this 
falsifyer  of  history  has  endeavored  to  cover 
up  his  tracks  by  omitting,  in  a  majority  of 
cases,  all  reference  to  editions,  chapters, 
and  pages  of  the  authors  he  professes  to 
quote.     But  it  has  been  in  vain. 

Once  more  ;  a  word  must  be  premised 
concerning  the  favorite  trick  of  this  author; 
the  quoting  of  Psedobaptist  commentaries 
and  doctors  on  his  side  of  the  question. — 
He  claims  sweeping  admissions,  as  having 
been  made,  not  only  by  those  crotchety  and 
fantastic  (though  learned)  minds,  wli.se 
soundness  of  judgment  all  orthodox  Chris- 
tians are  compelled  utterly  to  distrust,  on  all 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  69 

subjects  as  well  as  on  baptism,  such  as  Mc- 
Knight,  Campbell,  Olshausen,  Barnes  ;  but 
also  from  Luther,  Calvin,  Chalmers,  Miller, 
&c,  Some  he  cites  as  giving  up  this  proof- 
text,  and  some  as  surrendering  that.  Some, 
he  says,  admit  that  baptizo  means  primari- 
ly nothing  but  dip  ;  and  some  that  dipping 
was  the  undoubted  mode  of  the  ancient 
church.  Now  concerning  all  these  citations 
(omitting  for  the  present  misrepresenta- 
tions,) we  have  three  remarks  to  offer. — 
First ;  were  not  all  these  men  steady  Predo- 
baptists  in  their  practices,  notwithstanding 
these  pretended  admissions?  Were  they 
not  men  of  undoubted  intelligence  and 
holiness  ?  Then  every  fair  reader  will 
take  it  for  granted  that  they  at  least  sup- 
posed they  saw  consistent  and  solid  grounds 
for  not  being  Immersionists,  although  this 
fiery  slanderer  declares  it  impossible.-— 
Now,  good  reader,  we  suggest,  that  per- 
haps it  is  at  least  as  probable  these  great 
men,  whose  undoubted  wisdom,  learning, 
and  holiness,  all  the  world  venerates,  were 
right,  as  that  this  unscrupulous  sophist  and 
defamer,  already  detected  in  so  many 
breaches  of  confidence,  is  just  in  charging 
them  with  conscious  inconsistency.  Second, 
Presbyterians  do  not  pin  their  faith  to  the 


10  REVIEW  OF 

rotions  of  any  uninspired  teacher,  however 
good.  But  if  human  authorities  were  to 
decide  the  question,  it  would  be  perfectly 
easy  for  us  to  show  a  still  greater  number 
cf  learned  men,  who  contradict  Theodosia's 
authorities.  But  we  shall  not  insult  the  un- 
derstandings of  Protestant  readers  to  of- 
fering such  a  settlement.  It  is  amusing  to 
see  how,  when  Psedobaptist  doctors  seem  to 
say  anything  that  favors  immersion,  this 
author  is  almost  ready  to  say  :  "  It  is  the 
voice  of  a  God  and  not  of  a  man  ;"  but  if 
they  oppose  immersion,  at  once  they  are 
scoundrels  and  hypocrites,  who  practise  all 
the  arts  of  priestcraft,  and  hoodwink  inno- 
cent souls  to  their  ruin. 

But  third  ;  We  submit  it :  Is  it  fair  to 
quote  and  apply  a  concession  of  a  Psedo- 
baptist  thus  ?  These  commentators  honest- 
ly believe  that  baptizo,  whatever  may  have 
been  its  primary,  classical  meaning,  has 
come  to  have  a  generic,  sacramental  mean- 
ing, in  the  New  Testament;  that  baptism, 
in  that  sense  is  any  symbolic  washing  with 
water,  of  a  proper  subject,  by  a  proper  ad- 
ministrator, in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  ; 
that  according  to  the  teachings  of  God's 
word,  in  such  a  symbolic  sacrament,  the 
more  or  less  water,  and  the  mode  in  which 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  71 

it  is  applied  to  the  body,  or  the  body  to  it, 
cannot  be  of  importance  ;  and  that  God  has 
signified  the  sufficiency  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring  as  a  sacrament,  by  always  repre- 
senting the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (the  two  things  which 
the  water  represents)  as  poured,  shed,  or 
sprinkled  down.  Now  a  commentator  hold- 
ing these  views  might  admit  (what  we  and 
the  great  majority  of  Psedobaptists  utterly 
deny,)  that  many  or  all  of  the  baptisms  of 
the  New  Testament  were  by  immersion,  and 
yet  consistently  deny  that  immersion  is  ne- 
cessary or  obligatory  on  us.  Now  is  it  fair 
to  quote  such  authors  as  giving  up  the  point 
to  the  Immersionists? 

Old  Wall,  (author  of  a  Treatise  on  In- 
fant Baptism  )  who  is  himself  so  abused  by 
the  cunning  Courtney,  gives  us  an  amusing 
instance  to  show  that  the  trick  of  mis-quo- 
ting Psedobaptists  by  Immersionists  is  not 
a  new  one  in  our  day.  Speaking  of  a 
learned  and  accurate  Psedobaptist  writer, 
Mr.  VValker,  he  says  : 

"  Here  by  the  way,  I  cannot  but  take 
notice  how  much  trouble  such  an  adventu- 
rous author  as  this  Danvers  (an  Immer- 
sionist.)  is  able  to  give  to  such  a  careful 
and  exact  answerer  as  Mr.  Walker,     Dan- 


72  REVIEW  OF 

vers  does  in  this  place  deal  with  above 
twenty  other  writers  after  the  same  rate  as 
he  does  with  the  two  I  have  mentioned, 
viz :  Scapula^  Stephanus,  Pasor,  Vossius, 
height  Casaubon,  Beza,  Chamier,  Ham- 
mond,  Cajelan,  Musculus,  Piscator,  Calvin, 
Keckerman,  Diodat,  Grotius,  Davenant,  Si- 
lenus,  Dr.  Cave,  Wiel,  Strabo,  and  Arch- 
bishop Tillotson.  He  does  in  the  space  of 
twelve  pages,  quote  all  these  in  such  words 
as  if  they  had  made  dipping  to  be  of  the 
essence  of  baptism.  Mr.  Walker  shows 
that  he  has  abused  every  one  of  'em ;  by 
affixing  to  some  of  'em  words  that  they 
never  said,  by  adding  to  others,  by  alter- 
ing and  mistranslating  others,  and  by  cur- 
tailing the  words  of  the  rest.  But  what  a 
Trouble  is  this,  to  go  upon  such  a  man's 
errand  from  Book  to  Book,  search  the 
chapters,  (which  he  commonly  names 
wrong,)  recite  the  words  first  as  he  quotes 
'em,  and  then  as  they  really  are  in  the 
Book !  This  cost  Mr.  Walker  three  large 
chapters.  And  what  would  it  have  been  to 
answer  the  whole  book,  which  is  all  of  a 
piece  ?  This  is  the  book  which  is  so  much 
handed  about  among  the  Anti-psedobaptists 
of   England."— Wall's  History   of    Infant 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  73 

Baptism,  vol.  2,  p.  371,  2nd  London  Edi- 
tion of  A.  D.,  1720. 

But  to  our  task.  On  p.  136.  The  divers 
"  baptisms "  of  the  Pharisees  when  they 
come  from  market,  and  of  the  cups,  pots, 
brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables,  (Mark  vii : 
3 — 4,)  are  under  discussion.  (The  word 
rendered  "washings'"  is  in  the  original 
"  baptisms")  Even  the  fishy  Uncle  Jones 
seems  to  think  these  baptisms  squint  aw- 
fully towards  pouring.  But  the  crafty 
Courtney  comes  to  the  rescue,  with  a  pre- 
tended extract  from  a  famous  Rabbi  Mai- 
monides  (without  means  of  verifying  it  by 
the  name  of  his  work,  or  volume,  chapter, 
or  page,)  who  asserts  that  the  Pharisees 
always  dipped  themselves,  their  vessels,  and 
their  couches  on  such  occasions. 

11  That  will  indeed  remove  every  shadow 
of  doubt,"  said  the  Professor;  •■  but  have 
you  indeed  such  testimony?" 

*'  Certainly  we  have,"  replies  the  con- 
venient Courtney ;  "  There  was  a  very 
learned  Jew,  who  wrote  a  very  elaborate 
commentary  on  the  Jewish  customs  and 
traditions.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  great 
commentator,  recognizes  his  authority,  and 
calls  him  "  (where  ;  in  what  volume,  chap- 
ter, page  ?  Oh,   cunning  Courtney!)  "the 


74  REVIEW   OF 

great  expounder  of  the  Jewish  Law  ;  and 
as  he  comes  thus  ■  properly  vouched  for,'  I 
trust  his  evidence  will  not  be  disputed. — 
This  learned  and  eminent  Rabbi,  commonly 
called  Rabbi  Maimonides,  says,  in  his  com- 
mentary, ?  Every  vessel  of  wood,  as  a  table 
or  bed,  receives  defilement,  and  these  were 
washed  by  covering  in  water,  and  very  nice 
and  particular  they  were,'  he  adds,  *  that 
they  might  be  covered  all  over,'  "   &c,  &c. 

Now  good  reader,  does  not  this  paragraph 
make  the  impression  that  "  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke  the  great  commentator,"  (not  con- 
sidered sound  by  any  good  scholars,  by  the 
way,)  "  recognizes  the  authority  "  of  Mai- 
monides in  connexion  with  this  subject? — 
Did  not  the  author  intend  it  to  make  this  im- 
pression ?  He  does  not  say  so,  sly  fellow  ; 
for  then  he  might  be  caught.  Now  we  turn 
to  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's  commentary  on  Mark 
vii  3 — 4;  read  the  whole  of  it,  and  find  not 
one  word  of  Maimonides,  or  any  Jewish  Rabbi, 
as  teaching  that  these  Pharisees  and  their 
couches  were  dipped,  and  see  that  Clarke 
roundly  asserts  all  through,  that  these  baptisms 
we/e  net,  and  could  not  be,  by  immersion! — 
Now  after  such  an  imposture  has  been  at- 
tempted on  us  as  this;  we  cannot  believe 
that  the  citation  from  Maimonides  is  true, 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  15 

on  this  author's  *  say-so.'  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  author  of  Jheodosia  ever  saw 
these  statements  in  the  book  of  Maimoni- 
des  or  in  any  translation  even,  that  he  ever 
saw  the  place  in  Adam  Clarke  where  he 
"properly  vouches  for  him,"  that  he  could 
tell  us  where  to  look  for  the  citation  from 
either  Clarke  or  Maimonides,  or  that  he 
has  ever  had  any  means  of  knowing  per- 
sonally whether  these  statements  were  ever 
uttered  as  he  quotes  them  by  the  two  writers. 
We  will  tell  the  author,  and  his  Immersion- 
ist  friends  who  and  what  Maimonides  was ; 
and  they  will  then  see  on  what  ground  we 
think  so. 

Certain  it  is,  Clarke  makes  no  admission 
of  Maimonides'  authority  at  the  place  in 
question.  The  nearest  approach  which  we 
can  find  to  it  is  the  following ;  Clarke,  in  a 
sort  of  Bibliographical  work,  entitled  "  Suc- 
cession of  Sacred  Literature,''  p.  56,  de- 
scribes a  copy  of  the  Mischna,  or  text  of  the 
Babylonish  Talmud,  published  at  Amster- 
dam in  1698,  with  the  whole  comments  of 
Maimonides  and  Bartenora  thereon.  And 
concerning  this  collection,  he  says  :  "  This 
is  a  very  beautiful  and  correct  work,  neces- 
sary to  the  library  of  every  biblical  critic 
and  divine.     He    who    has  it  need  be  soli- 


76  REVIEW   OP 

citous  for  nothing  more  on  this  subject." — 
Does  this  vouch  for  the  correctness  of  Mai- 
monides'  statements,  or  the  correctness 
with  which  they  are  edited  and  translated? 
In  the  next  place,  Maimonides,  a  Spanish 
Jew  by  birth  was  born  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1131.  (Did  not  the  reader  suppose 
that  he  was  almost  a  cotemporary  with 
Christ?)  The  Babylonian  Talmud,  on 
which  he  wrote  both  annotations  and  an 
abridgement,  was  not  compiled  till  the  year 
500  or  after.  Now  is  this  an  authority  to 
be  set  up  against  God's  word,  as  to  Jew- 
ish usages  at  the  Christian  era?  If  the 
Jews  had  departed  so  widely  from  Sa- 
cred writ  in  their  traditions,  in  the  four 
hundred  years  between  the  prophets  and 
Christ;  how  much  more  widely  may  they 
not  have  departed  in  the  next  five  hundred 
years  of  growing  apostacy  and  supersti- 
tion ?  But  a  word  as  to  these  baptisms  of 
the  Pharisees,  when  returning  from  the 
markets;  and  of  cups,  pots,  couches! — 
This  author  claims  Old  Testament  evidence 
for  the  dipping  of  them,  by  referring  to  the 
numerous  ceremonial  washings  enjoined,  for 
instance  in  Levit.  xv  :  ■«  He  shall  bathe  in 
water."  But  the  word  "bathe"*  is  always 
"  rahatz"  which  does   not   mean  dip,  as  all 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  77 

know ;  and  the  preposition  is  *  beth,'  which 
may  as  justly  be  rendered  "  wash  with 
water."  Again  ;  Levit.  xi ;  32,  is  referred 
to,  where  it  is  provided  that  when  the  dead 
body  of  an  unclean  animal  falls  on  a  gar- 
ment, brazen  vessel,  &c,  u  it  shall  be  put 
into  water.*'  But  this  is  evidently  a  soaking, 
and  not  a  mere  dipping.  But,  that  these 
daily  immersions  of  whole  persons  and  bul- 
ky furniture  could  not  be  practised  in  a 
country  of  few  fountains  and  running 
streams,  is  plain  from  this.  When  water 
which  had  come  in  contact  with  anything  un- 
clean stood  at  all  in  a  vessel,  the  vessel  it- 
self became  unclean,  and  must  be  broken. 
Levit.  xi :  31 — 36.  Nothing  except  a 
flowing  fountain,  or  pit  in  which  was  much 
water,  could  submit  to  the  immersion  of  an 
unclean  object,  without  becoming  itself  un- 
clean, with  all  its  water.  Hence  pouring 
must  have  been  the  customary  mode,  for 
the  lesser,  daily  uncleanesses,  at  least. — 
And  of  this  we  have  Bible  proof.  See  2 
Kings  iii :  11. — "  Here  is  Elisha  the  son  of 
Shaphat,  which  poured  water  on  the  hands  of 
Elijah.1'  The  reference  is  to  the  time  when 
Elisha,  as  a  pupil  of  Elijah,  ministered  to 
him  in  his  religious  purifications.  In  John 
ii :  G,  we  are  told  ;  at  the   wedding  at  Ca- 


78  REVIEW   OP 

na,  there  stood  "  six  water  pots  of  stone, 
after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the 
Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins 
apeice."  These  pots  the  women  were  ac- 
customed to  carry  on  their  heads.  They 
held  two  or  three  firkins,  (metretas)  and 
were  too  small  to  admit  an  adult's  whole 
body.  But  they  were  provided  for  the 
Jews'  customary  ceremonial  baptisms  ;  that 
is,  to  afford  a  sufficient  supply  of  water, 
not  ceremonially  polluted  by  the  immersion 
of  any  unclean  thing,  to  be  poured  upon 
the  hands  of  the  household  and  the  guests. 
As  the  company  had  already  assembled  and 
the  eating  begun,  the  water  had  already 
been  thus  used  ;  hence  (John  ii :  7.)  Jesus 
had  to  cause  the  jars  to  be  filled  with 
water. 

It  would  seem  therefore  that  (supposing 
Maimonides  does  assert  the  daily  purifica- 
tions of  the  Jews  were  by  dipping  the  whole 
body,  which  we  feel  not  a  partiele  of  inte- 
rest in  denying ;)  these  apostate,  supersti- 
tious Jews,  in  the  course  of  five  or  eleven 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  had  "  improved 
upon"  the  Bible  institutions  concerning 
their  ceremonial  baptisms,  very  much  as 
Immersionists  have  done  in  the  supersti- 
tious ages  of  Romanism,  and  in  these  last 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  ^9 

(enlightened  ?)  ages.  The  Hijdromania 
has  been  a  growing  disease. 

We  now  request  the  reader  to  accompa- 
ny us  to  Theodosia's  115th  page  :  where  it 
is  desired  to  force  Pseilobaptist  authority 
to  prove  that  there  was  plenty  of  water 
about  Jerusalem  at  harvest,  to  immerse 
three  thousand  adults  at  once.  Dr.  Ed- 
ward Robinson,  an  eminent  living  scholar, 
Professor  in  the  Presbyterian  (New  School) 
Seminary  in  New  York  is  quoted.  He 
made  a  tour  of  the  holy  regions  with  the 
express  view  of  illustrating  biblical  antiqui- 
ties, and  published  his  observations  in  three 
valuable  volumes.  In  vol.  1,  p.  4b0 — 586, 
we  find  the  passages  from  which  the  sharp 
schoolmaster  quotes  as  follows  : 

"  Dr.  Robinson,  one  of  these  travellers, 
speaks  of  ■  immense  cisterns  now,  and  an- 
ciently, existing  within  the  area  of  the  Tem- 
ple, supplied  partly  from  rain  water,  and 
partly  by  the  aqueduct;'  and  tells  us  also 
that  4  almost  every  private  house  had  a  cis- 
tern in  it,' — p.  480.  Speaking  of  the  re- 
servoirs, he  says,  p.  483,  *  with  such  reser- 
voirs, Jerusalem  was  abundantly  supplied, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  immense  pools  of 
Solomon  beyond   Bethlehem,    which    were 


80  REVIEW   OP 

no  doubt  constructed  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Holy  City.' 

" '  There  are,'  he  says,  '  on  the  north 
side  of  the  city,  outside  the  walls,  two  very 
large  reservoirs,  one  of  which  is  over  three 
hundred  feet  long,  and  more  than  two  hun- 
dred feet  wide,  and  the  other  nearly  six 
hundred  feet  long  by  over  two  hundred  and 
fifty  feet  wide ;'  and  besides  these  he  men- 
tions the  pool  of  Siloam,  and  two  others  as 
being  without  the  walls.  Within  the  walls 
he  mentions  *  the  pool  of  Bathsheba,'  '  the 
pool  of  Hezekiah,'  and  '  the  pool  of  Beth- 
ezda.'  The  pool  of  Hezekiah  he  says  was 
about  two  hundred  and  forty  feet  long  by 
about  one  hundred  and  forty-four  feet 
broad ;  the  pool  of  Bethesda  three  hun- 
dred and  sixty  feet  long  by  one  hundred 
and  thirty  wide  ;  and  besides  these  he  men- 
tions an  aqueduct  and  numerous  other  foun- 
tains." So  far  the  Psedagogue  quoting 
Dr.  Robinson. 

The  first  fact,  wh'ch  damages  the  utility 
of  this  citation,  and  the  honesty  of  the  au- 
thor in  making  it,  is  this  ;  that  while  the 
scraps  he  has  picked  out  of  Dr.  Robinson's 
Eesearches,  over  a  space  of  thirty-six 
pages,  may  all  be  found  there  ;  they  were 
picked  out  of  the  very  midst  of  other  state- 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  81 

ments  ;  such  as  these  ;  that  the  "  numerous 
other  fountains  "  are  either,  veins  of  water 
at  the  bottom  of  very  deep  wells,  (as  the 
fountain  En  Rogel,)  or  small  springs  either 
walled  in,  or  arched  over,  the  thin  streams 
of  water  flowing  from  which  are  carefully 
conducted  into  some  subterranean  recepta- 
cle ;  and  that  those  cisterns  in  almost  every 
private  house,  were  just  as  available  for 
purposes  of  immersion  as  a  common  well  in 
Virginia.  Mr.  Robinson  says,  (p.  480 — 
481.)  "  The  cisterns  have  usually  merely 
a  round  opening  at  the  top,  sometimes  built 
up  with  stone  work  above,  and  furnished 
with  a  curb  and  a  wheel  for  the  bucket ;  so 
that  they  have  externally  much  the  appear- 
ance of  an  ordinary  well."  *  *  *  *  "In 
this  manner  most  of  the  larger  houses  and 
public  buildings  are  supplied."  *  *  *  * 
"  Most  of  these  cisterns  have  undoubtedly 
come  down  from  ancient  times  ;  and  their 
immense  extent  furnishes  a  full  solution  as 
to  the  supply  of  water  for  the  city."  Now 
how  could  this  writer  select  his  scraps,  de- 
signed to  make  Dr.  Robinson  seem  to  say 
that  there  were  abundant  means  at  Jerusa- 
lem for  immersing  the  three  thousand,  with- 
out seeing  these  statements  which  show  that 
6 


82  REVIEW   OF 

his  use  of  them  is  deceptive?     His  is  not  a 
sin  of  ignorance. 

The  second  fact  which  we  wish  the  read- 
er to  take  along  is  this  ;  that  Dr.  Eobinson 
in  another  work,  tenfold  more  known  than 
his  Eesearches  in  Palestine,  and  quoted  by 
this  very  Courtney,  his  Lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament  Greek,  does  explicitly  and  di- 
rectly give  in  his  testimony  as  to  the  mode 
in  which  the  Pentecostal  baptisms  must  have 
been  performed.  This  is  appended  to  his 
definition  of  the  word  baptizo.  See  Har- 
per's Edition  of  1850.  When  the  school- 
master examined  Dr.  Eobinson  to  extract 
that  testimony  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  with  which  he  twits  us  he  must  have 
seen  this  passage.  If  then  he  had  wished 
to  tell  his  readers  honestly,  what  Dr.  Eo- 
binson thought  of  the  matter,  why  did  he 
not  give  this  statement?  We  will  do  it 
for  him.  Dr.  E.  says  baptizo  in  New 
Testament  means,  *  ablution  or  effusion.' — 
b.)  "In  Acts  ii;  41,  three  thousand  persons 
are  said  to  have  been  baptized  at  Jerusa- 
lem apparently  in  one  day  at  the  season  of 
Pentecost  in  June  ;  and  in  Acts  iv  :  4,  the 
same  rite  is  necessarily  implied  in  respect  to 
five  thousand  more.     Against  the  idea  of 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  83 

full  immersion  in  these  cases  there  lies  a 
difficulty,  apparently  insuperable,  in  the 
scarcity  of  water.  There  is  in  summer  no 
running  stream  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusa- 
lem, except  the  mere  rill  of  Siloam  a  few 
rods  in  length  ;  aud  the  city  is  and  was 
supplied  with  water  from  its  cisterns  and 
public  reservoirs.  See  Bibl.  Researches  in 
Palest.  I,  p.  479 — 516.  From  neither  of 
these  sources  could  a  supply  have  been  well 
obtained  for  the  immersion  of  eight  thous- 
and persons.  The  same  -scarcity  of  water 
forbade  the  use  of  private  baths  as  a  gene- 
ral custom  ;  and  thus  also  further  precludes 
the  idea  of  bathing  in  the  passages  referred 
to  in  letter  a,)  (Luke  xi :  38,  Mark  vii :  2, 
4,  8.)  c.)  In  the  earliest  Latin  versions  of 
the  New  Testament  as  for  example  the 
Itala,  which  Augustine  regarded  as  the  best 
of  all  (de  Doctr.  Christ,  ii :  15)  and  which 
goes  back  apparently  to  the  second  centu- 
ry and  to  usage  connected  with  the  apostol- 
ic age,  the  Greek  verb  baptizo  is  uniform- 
ly given  in  the  Latin  form  baptizo,  and  is 
never  translated  by  immergo  or  any  like  word; 
showing  that  there  was  something  in  the 
rite  of  baptism  to  which  the  latter  did  not 
correspond.  See  Blanchini.  Evangeliarntm 
Quadruplex,    etc.    Rom.    1.749.     d.)     The 


84  REVIEW   OP 

baptismal  fonts  still  found  among  the  ruins 
of  the  most  ancient  Greek  churches  in  Pa- 
lestine, as  at  Tekoa  and  Gophna,  and  going 
back  apparently  to  very  early  times,  are 
not  large  enough  to  admit  of  the  baptism 
of  adult  persons  by  immersion  ;  and  were 
obviously  never  intended  for  that  use.  See 
Bibl.  Kes.  in  Palest.  II.,  p.  182,  III.,  p. 
78."  Thus  Dr.  Robinson  speaks  for  him- 
self. 

We  pass  now  to  another  perverted  wit- 
ness on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  On 
pages  323,  324  of  Theodosia,  Courtney,  the 
corruptor  of  facts,  cites  Dr.  Mosheim's 
Church  History  as  follows : 

"Dr.  Mosheim,  who  is  universally  known 
and  regarded  as  high  Psedobaptist  authori- 
ty, says,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the 
first  century;  'No  persons  were  admitted  to 
baptism  but  such  as  had  been  previously 
instructed  into  the  principal  points  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  had  also  given  satisfactory  proof 
of  pious  disjjositions  and  upright  intentions.' 
Of  the  second  century  he  says  :  'The  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  was,  during  this  century, 
administered  publicly  twice  a  year  at  the 
festivals  of  Easter  and  Whitsuntide.  The 
persons  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  re- 
peated the  creed,  confessed  and  renounced 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  85 

their  sins,  particularly  the  devil  and  his 
pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  under 
water,  and  received  into  Christ's  kingdom 
by  a  solemn  invocation.'  Of  course  they 
were  not  unconscious  infants." 

Thus  far  the  smart  schoolmaster.  His 
obvious  intention  is  to  represent  Dr.  Mos- 
heim  as  explicitly  implying  that  infants 
were  excluded  from  baptism  by  the  current 
usage  of  the  first  and  second  centuries. 
But  how  would  the  learned  German  be 
amazed  to  hear  himself  quoted  for  such  an 
assertion.  We  shall  now  place  over  against 
Mr.  Courtney's  pretended  citation,  the  whole 
passage  as  it  is  translated  by  Dr.  Murdock, 
far  the  most  accurate  of  his  translators,  and 
printed  in  Murdock's  Mosheim,  Harper's 
edition,  1844,  page  137.  Even  the  very 
passage  which  the  Immersionists  thus  per- 
vert will  then  be  found  to  contain  sufficient 
evidence,  without  looking  farther  into  Mos* 
heim's  opinions,  that  this  learned  antiqua- 
ry was  speaking,  not  of  Christian  infants, 
but  of  accessions  from  Judaism  and  Pa- 
ganism. 

"§.  13.  Twice  a  year,  namely,  at  Easter 
and  Whitsuntide,  (Paschatis  et  Pentecostis 
diebus.J  baptism  was  publicly  administered 
by  the  Bishop,  or  by   the  presbyters  acting 


8ft  REVIEW  OF 

by  his  command  and  authority.  The  candi- 
dates for  it  were  immersed  wholly  in  water, 
with  invocation  of  the  sacred  Trinity,  ac- 
cording to  the  Saviour's  precept,  after  they 
had  repeated  what  they  called  the  breed 
(Symbolum,)  and  had  renounced  all  their 
gins  and  transgressions,  and  especially  the 
devil  and  his  pomp.  The  baptized  were 
signed  with  the  cross,  anointed,  commended 
to  God  by  prayer  and  imposition  of  hands, 
and  finally  directed  to  taste  some  milk  and 
honey.  The  reasons  for  these  ceremonies, 
must  be  sought  in  what  has  already  been 
said  about  the  causes  of  the  ceremonies. 
Adults  were  to  prepare  their  minds  express- 
ly, by  prayers,  fasting,  and  other  devotional 
exercises,  Sponsors  or  Godfathers  were,  as 
I  apprehend,  first  employed  for  adults,  and 
afterwards  for  children  likewise." 

Thus  Mosheim  himself  indicates  that 
when  he  spoke  of  candidates  for  baptism 
repeating  the  creed,  renouncing  the  devil, 
etc.,  he  intended  only  that  these  prelimina- 
ries were  exacted  of  adults.  That  infants 
were  baptized  without  them,  he  implies, 
and  that  intentionally,  when  he  says;  "Adults 
were  to  prepare  their  minds  expressly,  by 
prayers,  fasting,  and    other  devotional  ex- 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  87 

also :  at  first  for  adults ;  because  at  first  the 
pious  parents  of  the  children  of  the  church 
stood  for  their  own  infants,  and  no  other 
infants  were  admitted  to  baptism ;  but  by 
degrees,  as  superstition  grew,  these  spon- 
sors were  also  admitted  to  stand  for  the 
infants  of  those  out  of  the  church.  The 
above  passage  which  we  have  faithfully 
quoted  from  Mosheim  also  presents  the 
reader  with  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  German  antiquaries  usually  state 
the  testimony  of  the  2nd  and  3d  centuries 
concerning  the  mode  of  baptism;  as  being 
by  a  trine  immersion,  accompanied  with 
several  superstitious  rites  of  crossing,  lay- 
ing on  hands,  tasting  honey,  milk  and  salt, 
and  putting  on  a  white  garment.  There 
are  two  reasons  why  we  do  not  consider 
this  testimony  of  any  importance.  First, 
the  New  Testament  mode  was  evidently 
different ;  and  we  do  not  feel  bound  by  mere 
human  authority,  however  primitive;  and 
more  thorough  researches  (for  a  specimen 
of  which  see  Taylor's  Apostolic  Baytism,,) 
have  shown  that  the  early  usages  of  the 
2nd  and  subsequent  centuries  were  not  uni- 
formly, nor  even  chiefly,  in  favor  of  baptism 
by  immersion,  as  was  supposed  by  Mos- 
heim, Neander,  Schaff,   &c.     Second,  this 


88  REVIEW    OF 

patristic  usage,  if  undisputed,  is  worthless 
to  a  Protestant,  because  it  shows  just  aa 
strongly  that  we  ought  to  baptize  all  per- 
sons, infants  and  adults,  naked,  by  a  trine 
immersion,  in  water  previously  consecrated, 
and  to  accompany  it  with  all  the  above 
mentioned  unscriptural  additions.  Immer- 
sionists,  if  they  will  use  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers,  have  no  right  to  retain  what 
suits  them  and  reject  the  rest. 

We  now  proceed  to  another  little  taste, 
somewhat  more  pungent,  of  the  incorrigible 
Courtney's  fidelity.  Let  the  reader  turn 
to  Theodosia,  page  322,  and  he  fwill  find 
the  statements  of  the  Magdeburg  Century 
(a  Lutheran  work  of  the  16th  century,)  in- 
troduced with  a  great  pretence  of  learned 
familiarity  with  it  and  its  authors.  The 
knight  of  the  Ferule  states  it  thus: 

"They  (the  Apostles)  baptized  only  the 
adult  or  aged,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
whereof  we  have  instances  in  &cts  2,  8,  10, 
16,  and  19th  chapters.  As  to  the  baptism 
of  infants  we  have  no  example.  As  to  the 
manner  of  baptizing,  it  was  by  dipping  or 
plunging  into  the  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to 
the  allusions  contained  in  the  6th  of  Eo- 
mans,  and  2nd  of  Colossians."     They  speak 


THEODOSTA    EARNEST.  89 

of  the  first  century:  and  of  the  second  cen- 
tury they  say:  "It  does  not  appear  from 
any  approved  authors,  that  there  was  any 
change  or  variation  from  the  former  century 
in  regard  to  baptism."  The  italics,  let  the 
reader  note,  are  Mr.  Courtney's  own. 

Now,  courteous  reader,  turn  with  us  to 
Semler's  edition  of  the  Magdeburg  Centu- 
ries, published  in  Nuremburg  1758.  The 
cute  Courtney,  according  to  his  wont,  has 
suppressed  all  reference  to  chapter  and 
page  ;  but  by  internal  marks,  we  recognize 
the  body  of  his  quotation  in  Century  1,  Book 
II,  chapter  6,  section  entitled  Ritas  circa 
Baptisma.  The  authors,  after  speaking  of 
the  places,  days,  &c,  in  which,  and  persons 
by  whom  baptism  was  anciently  adminis- 
tered, say: 

"That  adults  were  baptized,  as  well  Jews 
as  Gentiles,  the  examples  of  Acts  2,  8,  10, 
16,  19th  prove.  Of  infants  baptized,  par- 
ticularized examples  are  indeed  not  found 
(in  the  Scriptures;)  but  Origen,  and  Cyprian 
and  other  fathers  are  authority  that  infants 
were  baptized  in  the  time  even  of  the  Apos- 
tles. This  also  appears  from  the  writings 
of  the  Apostles,  that  they  do  not  exclude 
infants  from  baptism.  For  while  Paul 
teaches,  Colos.   2nd  chapter,  that  baptism 


90  REVIEW   OP 

supplies  the  place  of  circumcision,  he  indi- 
cates that  infants  and  adults  ought  equally 
to  be  admitted  to  baptism.  Likewise  1 
Cor.  2nd  chapter,  calls  the  children  of  be- 
lievers saints,  not  indeed  on  account  of  their 
nativity,  but  because  Christian  parents  com- 
mit them  to  God  in  their  prayers,  and  offer 
them  to  baptism  and  the  washing  of  regene- 
ration and  sanctification,  more  promptly 
than  Gentile  parents." 

The  mistake  which  the  authors  (or  their 
printers)  make  in  referring  to  1  Cor.  2nd 
chapter,  where  chapter  7th  is  intended,  will 
not  affect  the  case.  The  reader  will  see 
that  the  word  only,  which  the  author  of 
Theodosia  introduces,  and  italicizes,  is  ut- 
terly wanting,  in  the  true  reading.  But  it 
makes  all  the  difference  in  the  passage, 
which  exists  between  'yes?  and  '?*o.'  And 
then  the  authors  are  found,  so  far  from 
saving  that  "only  adults  were  baptized  by 
the  Apostles,"  to  assert  and  argue,  both 
from  the  inspired  and  uninspired  records, 
that  infants  also  were  baptized.  They  do 
indeed  say  that  no  example  is  found  par- 
ticularized of  an  infant  baptism  ;  but  this 
is  not  what  they  are  quoted  as  saying,  in 
Theodosia.  Now  whether  the  author  of 
this  wretched  story  book,  manufactured  this 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  91 

misrepresentation  for  himself,  or  borrowed 
it  ready  manufactured  from  some  other  Im- 
mersionist  raver  as  unscrupulous  as  himself, 
we  care  not  to  inquire.  Perhaps  the  latter 
is  true.  Most  probably  he  really  knows 
nothing  of  the  Magdeburg  Centuriators,  and 
never  saw  the  outside,  much  less  examined 
the  interior  of  a  volume  of  this  work.  But 
why  then  did  he  preface  his  introduction  of 
their  pretended  testimony  with  his  flippant 
description  of  the  work  and  its  authors  ? 
thus  seeking  to  make  the  impression  that 
he  was  entirely  familiar  with  both.  Any 
way,  we  nail  the  imposture  down,  as  an  at- 
tempt to  perpetrate  an  unmitigated  lie  ;  an 
evidence  that  this  scribbler  is  utterly  treach- 
erous, and  deserving  only  of  a  dismissal 
from  every  honest  man's  attention,  with  all 
his  pretended  facts  and  arguments. 

Next  we  must  beg  the  reader  to  bear 
with  us,  while  we  again  refute  the  oft-refu- 
ted slander,  that  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly, the  authors  of  the  Presbyterian  Con- 
fession and  Catechisms,  came  within  one 
vote  of  adopting  immersion  instead  of 
sprinkling.  One  would  think  that  this  tale 
had  been  often  enough  advanced,  and  often 
enough  proved  false,  for  even  the  ignorance 
of  this  author  to  be  enlightened  on  the  sub- 


92  REVIEW   OF 

ject.  For  instance,  in  the  famous  Lexing- 
ton debate  of  Rice  and  Campbell,  Mr. 
Campbell  advanced  this  charge  against  the 
"Westminister  Assembly  ;  and  Mr.  Rice  dis- 
proved it  nearly  in  the  words  which  we  are 
about  to  employ  from  Lightfoot's  works,  in 
such  a  triumphant  way,  that  Mr.  Campbell 
himself  tacitly  withdrew  the  charge.  Now, 
is  it  likely  that  the  author  of  Theodosia, 
himself  a  Western  man,  never  saw  this  book, 
so  famous  especially  throughout  the  West? 
Did  he  again  publish  the  statement  after 
having  seen  its  utter  refutation?  This  is  a 
question  which  we  leave  to  his  own  con- 
science to  answer.  On  page  178  of  Theo- 
dosia we  find  it  again;  as  follows: — 

"You  will  there"  (Edinb.  Encycl)  "learn 
that  in  England  the  Westminster  Assembly 
of  Divines  had  a  warm  discussion  whether 
immersion  or  sprinkling  should  be  adopted. 
But  by  the  earnest  efforts  of  Dr.  Lightfoot, 
who  had  great  interest  in  the  Assembly, 
sprinkling  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of 
one.  The  vote  stood,  24  for  immersion,  and 
25  for  sprinkling.  This  was  1643  years 
after  Christ.  The  next  year  an  act  of  par- 
liament was  passed  requiring  the  parents 
of  all  children  born  in  the  realm  to  have 
them  sprinkled,  &c." 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  93 

As  Dr.  Lightfoot's  name  has  been  men- 
tioned in  connexion  with  this  ridiculous 
story,  we  may  as  well  "scotch"  it  by  a  re- 
ference to  his  life.  See  London  edition  of 
Lightfoot's  works,  1684.  Author's  life,  p. 
5.     The  tale  is  there  told  thus : 

"Upon  that  proposition  relating  to  Bap- 
tism; it  is  lawful  and  sufficient  to  sprinkle  the 
child,  our  author  opposed  them  that  worded 
it  in  that  manner:  it  being  unfit  to  vote 
that  as  lawful  only,  which  every  one  grants 
to  be  so.  And  whereas  one  of  that  Assem- 
bly attempted  in  a  large  discourse,  to  prove 
that  (Tebeylah)  (which  signifies  Baptism) 
imports  a  dipping  overhead;  our  author 
replied  at  large,  and  proved  the  contrary. 
1.  From  a  passage  of  Aben  Ezra  on  Gen. 
38.  2.  From  Rabbi  Solomon  Jarchi,  who, 
in  his  commentary  on  Exod.  24,  saith  that 
Israel  entered  into  covenant  with  sprink- 
ling of  blood,  and  Tebeylah;  which  the  au- 
thor of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  expound- 
ed by  sprinkling;  Heb.  9th.  3.  From  this, 
that  Jo/m  the  Baptist  sometimes  preached 
and  baptized  in  places  where  he  could  not 
possibly  dip  those  who  were  baptized.  In 
conclusion  he  proposed  to  that  Assembly 
to  show  him  in  all  the  Old  Testament,  any 
one  instance  where  the  word  used  de  Sacris 


94  REVIEW   OF 

et  in  actu  transcunto,  implied  any  more  than 
sprinkling.  It  is  said  indeed  that  the  priests 
washed  their  bodies,  and  that  the  unclean 
washed  himself  in  water;  but  this  was  not  a 
transient  action.  And  when  they  came  to 
the  vote  whether  the  Directory  should  run 
thus :  The  minister  shall  take  the  water  and 
sprinkle  or  pour  it  with  his  hand  upon  the 
face  or  forehead  of  the  child,  some  were  un- 
willing to  have  dipping  excluded,  so  that 
the  vote  came  to  an  equality  within  one; 
Tor  the  one  side  there  being  twenty-four, 
and  for  the  other  twenty-five.  The  busi- 
ness was  therefore  recommitted  and  re- 
sumed the  day  following;  where  our  author 
demanded  of  them  who  insisted  upon  dipping 
the  reason  of  their  opinion,  and  that  they 
would  give  their  proofs:  Hereupon  it  was 
thus  worded ;  That  pouring  on  of  water  or 
sprinkling,  in  the  administration  of  baptism, 
is  lawful  and  sufficient.  Where  our  author 
excepted  against  the  word  lawful,  as  being 
all  one  as  if  it  should  be  determined  to  be 
lawful  to  use  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's 
Supper;  and  he  moved  that  it  might  be  ex- 
pressed thus ;  It  is  not  only  lawful  but  also 
sufficient.  And  it  was  done  so  accordingly." 
If  the  reader  has  the  means  of  consulting 
the  Westminster  Directory,  he  will  find  that 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  95 

the  whole  article,  as  it  was  finally  adopted 
reads  thus:  "As  he  (the  minister)  pro- 
nounceth  these  words,  he  is  to  baptize  the 
child  with  water;  which,  for  the  manner  of 
doing  it,  is  not  only  lawful  but  sufficient, 
and  most  expedient  to  be,  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling  of  the  water  on  the  face  of  the 
child,  without  adding  any  other  ceremony/' 
It  thus  appears  that  the  only  subject  upon 
which  the  Assembly  was  divided,  was  this; 
not  whether  dipping  should  be  named  as 
the  only  proper  mode;  but  whether  dippi?ig 
should  be  named  along  with  sprinkling  and 
pouring,  as  one  of  the  admissible  modes.  A 
very  different  affair  this,  truly  !  The  whole 
of  the  difference  which  the  large  minority 
of  twenty-four  made  was,  not  that  they  wish- 
ed to  exclude  affusion ;  but  that  they  were 
unwilling  to  totally  exclude  dipping.  Thus 
this  slander  is  again  killed :  but  perhaps 
only  to  be  again  revived  in  the  next  Im- 
mersionist  novel.  It  may  also  be  remark- 
ed, in  dismissing  this  point,  that  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  the  strength  of  whose  views  in 
favor  of  affusion  may  be  seen  in  the  above 
extract,  is  the  great  channel,  through  which 
English  scholars  ever  since  have  received 
a  partial  knowledge  of  the  Talmudical  lite- 
rature of  the  Jews.     There  was  then  no 


96  REVIEW   OF 

man  in  Great  Britain,  who  had  made  him- 
self such  a  master  of  it.  Subsequent  scho- 
lars who  profess  to  know  something  of  it 
have  mostly  done  nothing  more  than  bor- 
row from  him.  We  doubt  not  that  there 
are  nine  chances  to  one  that  whatever  the 
author  of  Theodosia  (or  more  properly,  the 
predecessors  from  whom  he  plagiarized)  has 
picked  up  about  the  learned  Maimonides,  was 
gotten  from  the  Talmudical  illustrations  of 
the  New  Testament  written  by  this  very 
Dr.  Lightfoot.  And  seeing  Dr.  Lightfoot 
taught  these  pretentious  liter  ateurs  what 
little  they  know  of  the  matter,  it  seems  to 
us,  the  former  is  more  likely  to  have  been 
a  sound  judge  of  the  bearing  of  the  Hebrew 
usages  on  the  mode  of  Baptism.  He,  who 
had  thoroughly  mastered  all  the  Talmudists 
had  to  say  of  it,  was,  as  we  saw  above,  only 
strengthened  in  his  belief  that  affusion  was 
the  Bible  mode. 

Let  the  reader  now  advance  a  little,  to 
pages  179,  180  of  Theodosia.  He  will 
there  find  that  the  fishy  Uncle  Jones  is  re- 
presented as  asking  this  question:  "Did 
not  Cyprian,  one  of  the  ancient  fathers  ex- 
pressly declare  that  sprinkling  was  practised 
in  his  day,  and  was  considered  valid  bap- 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  97 

tism  ?  I  am  sure  I  have  received  such  an 
impression  from  some  source." 

"You  probably  received  it  from  some 
Doctor  of  Divinity,"  replies  the  pert  peda- 
gogue,— "they  are  accustomed  to  make  such 
impressions ;  but  Cyprian  says  no  such 
thing,"  &c.  &c. 

Now  good  reader,  go  with  us  to  the  ori- 
ginal works  of  Cyprian,  letter  69,  of  the 
Oxford  edition  of  1682,  page  185,  &c;  a 
letter  addressed  to  a  Christian  named  Mag- 
nus; and  you  will  see  a  case  of  brazen  and 
hardy  impudence  detected,  which  you  will 
scarcely  believe  a  bad  man  could  be  shame- 
less enough  to  adventure, in  a  printed  book. 
We  give  a  translation  of  Cyprian's  own 
words,  rigidly  faithful;  and  we  give  them 
somewhat  fully,  at  the  risque  of  tediousness, 
in  order  that  every  one  may  see  for  himself 
the  whole  connexion  and  bearing. 

uThou  hast  inquired  also,  dearest  son, 
what  I  think  of  those  who  obtain  the  grace 
of  God  in  weakness  and  disease,  whether 
th^y  are  to  be  esteemed  legitimate  Chris- 
tians, seeing  that  they  have  not  been  wash- 
ed with  the  saving  water,  but  sprinkled. 
In  which  particular  our  modesty  and  mo- 
deration prejudices  the  opinion  of  no  one, 
as  to  his  believing  whatever  he  esteems 
7 


98  KEVIEW  OF 

true,  and  practising  what  he  believes.  So 
far  as  our  mediocrity  hath  apprehended  the 
matter,  we  judge  that  the  divine  benefits 
can  in  no  case  be  mutilated  and  weakened, 
and  that  no  smaller  gift  which  is  drawn 
from  the  divine  munificence,  can  possibly 
be  bestowed  in  that  case,  where  it  (baptism) 
is  received  with  the  full  and  entire  faith  of 
administrator  and  recipient.  For  in  the 
saving  sacrament  the  stain  of  sins  is  not 
washed  away,  like  the  soil  of  the  skin  and 
body  in  a  material  and  secular  bath,  so  that 
there  must  needs  be  nitre,  and  a  vat,  a 
swimming-pool,  and  the  other  appurtenances 
by  which  the  poor  body  can  be  washed  and 
cleaned.  The  breast  (heart)  of  the  believer 
is  washed  in  another  wise;  the  soul  of  man 
is  cleansed  in  a  different  way,  by  the  merits 
of  faith.  On  the  saving  sacraments,  where 
necessity  compels,  and  God  bestows  his  in- 
dulgence, the  abbreviated  methods  of  God 
confer  on  those  who  believe,  the  whole." 

'*Nor  should  the  fact,  that  it  appeared 
the  sick  person  was  sprinkled  or  poured  on, 
when  he  obtained  the  Lord's  grace,  move 
any  one;  since  the  sacred  Scripture,  by  the 
prophet  Ez»  kiel  (36,  25,)  speaks  and  says; 
'Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  clean;  from  all  your  filthi- 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  99 

ness,  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse 
you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 
and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you,"  &c. 
Likewise  in  Numbers,  xix:  7  and  19:  "Then 
the  priest  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  he 
shall  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  afterward 
he  shall  come  into  the  camp,"  &c.  "And 
the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  upon  the 
unclean  the  third  day  and  on  the  seventh 
day."  And  again;  Numb,  viii:  7.  "And 
thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse 
them :  Sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon 
them,  and  let  them  shave  all  their  flesh,  and 
let  them  wash  their  clothes,  and  so  make 
themselves  clean."  And  again;  "The  water 
of  sprinkling  is  purification."  Whence  it 
appears  that  the  aspersion  of  water  likewise 
holds  good  just  as  the  savingr  washing ;  and 
when  these  things  are  done  under  the 
church,  where  the  faith  of  both  administra- 
tor and  recipient  is  sound,  all  (the  effects) 
can  hold  sjood,  and  be  consummated  and 
perfected  by  the  majesty  of  God,  and  by 
the  truth  of  faith.  Moreover;  as  to  their 
calling  them  not  Christians,  but  Clinics, 
who  have  obtained  the  grace  of  Christ  by 
the  saving  water  and  legitimate  faith,  I 
do  not  find  whence  they  borrow  that  name; 
unless   perhaps,   persons    who   have    been 


100  REVIEW   OF 

reading  the  larger  and  more  private  trea- 
tises of  Hipocrates  or  Soranus,  (two  medical 
writers)  have  discovered  (the  idea  of  call- 
ing) them  Clinics.  For  I,  when  I  read  of 
a  Clinic  in  the  Gospel,  learn  that  his  weak- 
ness was  no  obstacle  to  that  paralytic  and 
weak  man,  who  lay  on  his  bed  through  the 
courses  of  a  long  life,  to  hinder  his  attain- 
ing most  fully  a  heaven-born  health ;  Not 
only  was  he  raised  from  his  bed  by  the 
Lord's  mercy,  but  carried  his  own  bed  with 
his  renovated  strength.  And  therefore,  so 
far  as  it  is  granted  to  me  by  faith  to  ap- 
prehend and  feel,  this  is  my  opinion :  That 
whosoever  hath  obtained  the  divine  grace 
of  baptism,  by  the  legitimate  rule  of  faith, 
under  the  church,  be  adjudged  a  legitimate 
Christian.  Or  if  any  one  supposes  that 
they  (these  sprinkled  persons)  have  obtained 
nothing,  but  are  empty  and  void,  for  the 
reason  that  they  were  only  sprinkled  with 
the  saving  water,  let  them  not  be  so  de- 
ceived as  to  be  baptized  (again)  when  they 
shall  have  escaped  the  affliction  of  sickness, 
and  convalesced.  But  if  those  cannot  be 
baptized  (again)  who  have  been  already 
sanctified  by  ecclesiastical  baptism,  why  are 
they  scandalized  in  their  faith  and  the  mer- 
cy of  the  Lord?     Or  have  they,  indeed,  re- 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  101 

ceived  the  Lord's  grace,  but  in  a  shorter 
and  scantier  measure  of  the  gift  of  the  di- 
vine and  sacred  Spirit:  so  as  to  be  esteemed 
Christians  indeed,  but  Christians  who  must 
not  be  equalled  to  others?  Nay,  but  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  not  given  from  a  measure, 
but  is  poured  out  entire  on  the  believer. 
For  if  the  day  rises  equally  upon  all,  and 
if  the  sun  is  diffused  over  all  with  equal  and 
similar  light,  how  much  more  does  Christ, 
the  true  Sun  and  Day,  bestow  his  light  of 
eternal  life  in  the  church  with  a  similar 
equality,"  &c. 

The  reader  ean  now  see  for  himself, 
whether  Cyprian  did,  as  Uncle  Jones  sup- 
posed he  had  somewhere  heard,  "expressly 
declare  that  sprinkling  was  practised  in  his 
day,  and  was  considered  valid  baptism ;" 
and  whether  the  author  has  acted  honestly 
in  thus  roundly  denying  it.  St.  Cyprian  was 
converted  A.  D.  215,  martyred  258.  Dur- 
ing his  episcopate  in  Carthage,  he  was,  on 
the  whole,  the  most  prominent,  influential, 
and  able  divine  in  all  the  Latin  part  of 
Christendom.  We  may  safely  assume  that 
his  opinions  were  those  generally  adopted. 
We  do  not  of  course  adopt  all  his  argu- 
ments, nor  his  obvious  belief  in  baptismal 
regeneration;  what  we  wish  the  reader  to 


102  REVIEW   OF 

consider  is  his  testimony  as  to  the  state  of 
opinion.  One  thing  is  obvious,  that  al- 
though unscriptural  superstitions  about  bap- 
tism had  already  proceeded  so  far,  this 
great  and  good  man  regards  the  position 
■which  is  now  the  shibboleth  of  Immersion- 
ists,  that  any  baptism  but  dipping  is  not  only 
irregular,  but  worthless,  with  a  disapproba- 
tion near  to  contempt.  That  was  a  super- 
stition too  rank  even  for  the  rapidly  cor- 
rupting church  of  the  third  century.  The 
author  says  that  the  Christians  of  the  first 
three  centuries  were  Baptists.  Would  any 
Immersionist  preacher  now  use  the  above 
liberal  expressions  of  Cyprian,  concerning 
a  man  baptized  by  affusion  ? 

On  page  180,  Theodosia,  the  attempt  is 
slyly  made  to  insinuate  another  erroneous 
statement  concerning  the  usages  of  antiqui- 
ty upon  the  same  subject  of  clinic  baptisms. 
The  schoolmaster  continues: 

"It  appears  that  a  certain  man,  named 
Kovatian,  was  taken  sick,  and  was  appa- 
rently nigh  unto  death.  In  this  condition 
he  became,  as  many  others  have  done, 
greatly  alarmed  about  his  condition  ;  and 
professing  faith  in  Christ,  desired  to  be 
baptized.  But  he  was  too  weak  to  be  taken 
out  of  bed  and  put  into  the  water.     The 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  103 

water  was  therefore,  poured  around  him  in 
his  bed.  He  afterwards  recovered,  and 
devoting  himself'  to  the  ministry,  applied 
for  priestly  orders,  and  the  question  arose, 
whether  one  thus  'poured  upon'  in  his  bed 
could  be  accounted  a  Christian.  Now,  it 
is  evident,  that  if  pouring  or  sprinkling  had 
been  a  common  mode  of  administering  the 
ordinance,  this  question  would  never  have 
been  asked.'' 

Here  the  impression  is  obviously  intend- 
ed to  be  made,  that  the  church  of  the  third 
century  considered  the  insufficiency  of  No- 
vatus'  clinic  baptism  as  a  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  his  ordination  to  clerical  office;  be- 
cause it  seemed  doubtful  "whether  one  thus 
poured  upon  in  his  bed  could  be  accounted 
a  Christian."  Now  we  turn  to  Wall's  His- 
tory of  Infant  Baptism,  (from  whom  this 
author  doubtless  picked  out  the  little  and 
confused  knowledge  which  he  has  of  Nova- 
tus'  case.)  London  edition  of  1720,  vol.  II, 
page  353;  and  we  there  find  the  following 
testimony — '*Tis  true,  the  Christians  had 
then  a  Rule  among  themselves,  that  such 
an  one,  if  he  recovered,  should  never  be 
preferred  to  an \  Officein  the  Church.  Which 
Rule  they  made,  not  that  they  thought  that 


104  review  or 

manner  of  baptism  to  be  less  effectual  than 
the  other ;  but  for  the  Keason  expressed  by 
the  Council  of  Neoccssarea,  held  about  80 
years  after  this  Time:  The  12th  Canon 
whereof  is :  He  that  is  baptized  when  he  is  sick, 
ought  not  to  be  made  a  Priest  (for  his  coming 
to  the  Faith  is  not  voluntary,  but  from  Ne- 
cessity,) unless  his  Diligence  and  Faith  do 
afterwards  prove  commendable,  or  the  Scarci- 
ty of  Men  fit  for  the  office  do  require  it." 

Bingham,  in  hie  Origines  Sacra,  book  IV, 
chap.  3,  $.  11,  bears  precisely  the  same 
testimony — Why  did  not  the  author,  when 
borrowing  this  story  of  Novatus  from  Wall, 
tell  the  whole  truth  ? 

Bear  with  us,  kind  reader,  if  disgust  at 
this  man's  conduct  will  permit,  while  we  dis- 
close another  instance  of  his  reckless  disre- 
gard of  truth.  At  the  bottom  of  page  324, 
he  asserts  most  roundly,  in  these  words: 
that  "there  is  not  on  record  a  single,  soli- 
tary instance  of  the  baptism  of  a  child,  till 
the  year  of  our  Lord  three  hundred  and 
seventy,  and  that  was  the  son  of  the  Empe- 
ror Vallens,  which  was  thought  to  be  djing, 
and  was  baptized  by  the  command  of  his 
Majesty,  who  swore  he  would  not  be  con- 
tradicted," &c.  &c.     (The  fellow  does  nob 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  105 

even  falsify  neatly,  for  he  is  too  ignorant 
to  be  able  to  spell  the  name  of  the  Emperor 
Valens.) 

Now  if  the  reader  will  turn  to  pages  333, 
and  337,  of  Theodosia,  he  will  find  that  the 
author  actually  refers  to  two  or  three  docu- 
ments, of  the  dates,  A.  D.  200,  and  250 
nearly:  (respectively  170,  and  120  years 
before  the  year  370)  the  genuineness  of 
which  he  himself  admits ;  and  of  which  even 
the  wretchedly  perverted  extracts  which  he 
gives  clearly  imply  the  habitual  baptism  of 
infants  at  those  dates.  One  of  these  is 
called  by  the  most  inept  psedagogue,  the 
Letter  of  Tertullian  Bishop  of  Carthage,  to 
the  lady  Quintilla;  whereas  it  is  in  fact  not 
a  letter,  but  a  Book  or  Treatise,  of  Tertul- 
lian, not  Bishop  of  Carthage,  but  presbyter, 
on  Baptism;  and  not  addressed  to  anybody 
in  particular.  In  this  treatise,  the  super- 
stitious but  learned  author  takes  the  ground 
that  the  baptism  of  little  children,  then  ad- 
mitted by  plain  inference  to  be  prevalent, 
ought  to  be  delayed,  because  baptism  washes 
away  all  sins  committed  previously,  whereas 
those  committed  afterwards  are  peculiarly 
damning.  And  he  argues  for  the  delay  of 
baptism  by  every  argument  he  can  think  of, 
with  great  zeal.     But  why  did  he  not  cut 


106  REVIEW   OF 

the  matter  short  by  saying,  that  early  bap- 
tism was  an  unscriptural  irnovation?  No 
doubt  he  would  have  done  so,  if  he  could. 
Another  of  these  documents  is  the  testimony 
of  Irenagus,  (who  is  even  earlier  than  A.  D. 
200)  to  the  fact  that  many  infants  had  been 
"regenerated"  The  clamorous  Courtney 
disputes  that  by  the  phrase  "regenerated" 
Irenseus  meant  the  baptism. of  the  infants; 
but  every  good  scholar  knows  that  the 
clamorous  Courtney  is  wrong.  A  denial  so 
marked  by  brazen  ignorance  and  impudence 
deserves  no  other  reply  than  contempt.  The 
third  document  is  a  letter  of  St.  Cyprian, 
whose  acquaintance  we  have  already  made, 
to  Fidus — Fridus,  the  accurate  knight  of 
the  birch  makes  it;  thereby  betraying,  what 
is  apparent  to  the  intelligent  reader  all 
through ;  that  he  really  knows  nothing 
about  the  history  of  which  he  professes  to 
descant,  but  is  borrowing  at  second  or  third 
hand,  from  some  bungler  like  himself. — 
Fidus'  question  is:  Whether  the  baptism 
of  infants  might  not  to  be  postponed  till  the 
eighth  day,  as  circumcision  was?  Cyprian 
answers,  No;  and  the  whole  tenor  of  his 
answer  shows  that  on  the  question  of  bap- 
tizing  infants,  there  was  no  dispute. 

Now  what  must  be  the  hardihood  of  this 


THEODOSTA   EARNEST.  107 

scribbler,  how  profound  his  belief  in  the 
stupidity  of  those  for  whom  he  writes  ;  that 
he  should  make  an  assertion  on  page  324, 
and  himself  furnish  the  refutation  of  it  on 
page  337?  Or  did  he  think  to  avail  him- 
self of  the  mean  quirk,  that  whereas  he  had 
said  there  was  "not  on  record  a  single, 
solitary  instance  of  the  baptism  of  a  child" 
till  A.  D.  370.  Tertullian's  and  Cyprian's 
testimony  only  prove  the  general  baptism 
of  infants,  not  the  baptism  of  a  single  child 
by  name?  Does  the  value  of  the  historical 
testimony,  as  to  the  customs  of  the  church 
before  A.  D.  370,  depend  on  the  giving  of 
the  name,  and  parents'  name,  of  some  child 
baptized?  If  the  testimony  mentioned 
above  does  not  record  a  single,  solitary  in- 
stance of  infant  baptism,  it  is  only  because 
it  evidences  what  is  a  thousand  times  more 
destructive  to  the  author's  assertion,  a  gene- 
ral prevalence  of  infant  baptism.  The  au- 
thor does  indeed  answer,  with  equal  feeble- 
ness and  effrontry,  to  the  question  : 

"What  was  the  effect  of  this  decree  of 
the  African  Council?"  (which  concurred 
with  Cyprian  in  the  answer.) 

"It  seems  to  have  had  none.  It  is  likely 
that  it  relieved  the  doubts  of  Fridus;  and 
infants  were  probably  baptized  in  Africa  to 


108  REVIEW   OF 

some  limited  extent,  but  we  have  no  record 
of  any  such  baptism,"  &c. 

That  the  reader  may  see  for  himself;  we 
now  insert  a  faithful  translation  of  that  por- 
tion of  Cyprian's  letter  to  Fidus,  which 
bears  on  the  subject.  In  the  Oxford  edi- 
tion of  Cyprian's  works,  1682,  it  is  the  64th 
Epistle,  and  may  be  found  at  page  158.  It 
appears  that  sixty-six  clergymen  joined 
Cyprian  in  the  consultation. 

"As  relates  to  the  cause  of  the  infants, 
who,  you  say,  should  not  be  baptized  within 
the  second  or  third  day  of  their  birth,  and 
that  the  law  of  ancient  circumcision  ought 
to  be  observed,  so  as  to  determine  that  he 
who  is  born  must  not  be  baptized  and  sanc- 
tified within  the  eighth  day ;  it  seemed  far 
otherwise  to  all  in  our  Council.  For  no  one 
agreed  with  you  in  this  which  you  thought 
ought  to  be  done;  but  the  whole  of  us  rather 
judged  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God 
should  be  denied  to  none  that  are  born  of 
mankind.  For  since  the  Lord  saith  in  his 
Gospel;  'The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  de- 
stroy the  souls  of  men  but  to  save,'  no  soul 
ought  to  be  lost  if  it  can  be,  so  far  as  lies 
in  us,"  *  *  *  *  &c.  &c. 

After  some  matter  not  important  to  our 
point;  Cyprian  proceeds: 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  109 

"For,  as  for  the  fact  that  the  eighth  day 
was  observed  in  the  Jewish  carnal  circum- 
cision, it  is  a  sacrament  (i.  e.  baptism)  pre- 
figured in  a  shadow  and  type,  but  com- 
pleted in  its  truth  when  Christ  came.  For, 
because  it  was  destined  to  be  the  eighth 
day,  that  is,  the  first  day  after  the  Sab- 
bath, on  which  our  Lord  should  rise,  and 
revivify  us  and  give  us  the  spiritual  circum- 
cision, this  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  first  day- 
after  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Lord's  day,  was 
prefigured  in  the  type;  which  type  ceased 
when  the  reality  supervened  afterwards,  and 
spiritual  circumcision  was  given  to  us,"  &c. 

With  the  soundness  of  Cyprian's  argu- 
ment in  the  last  paragraph  we  have  no  con- 
cern; but  only  with  his  historical  evidence. 
And  now,  is  there  a  man  in  his  senses,  who 
will  deny  that  infant  baptism  must  have 
been  practised  before  ?  Or  else  a  clergyman 
would  never  have  penned  such  a  question, 
nor  would  sixty-seven  other  clergymen  have 
ever  penned  such  an  answer — That  in- 
fants should  be  of  course  baptized,  is  as- 
sumed as  a  postulate,  by  both  questioner 
and  respondents,  without  a  hint  of  the 
slightest  demurring.  The  only  difficulty  is, 
whether  the  precedent  of  circumcision  did 
not  require  its  postponement  to  the  eighth 


110  REVIEW   OF 

day.  Would  such  a  question  and  answer 
ever  have  been  uttered,  if  infant  baptism 
had  not  been  already  common?  "Credat 
Judceus  Apellcs:  non  Ego."  And  second  : 
it  is  evident  that  both  Fidus  and  Cyprian's 
Council  understood  that  it  was  an  admitted 
truth,  baptism  came  in  place  of  circumcis- 
ion, as  is  taught  by  Paul,  Colossians  ii :  11, 
12.  Fidus'  question  is  based  on  that  belief. 
And  Cyprian  and  his  colleagues,  though 
differing  in  the  answer,  did  not  say,  as  they 
would  have  done  had  they  disbelieved  the 
relation  between  circumcision  and  baptism; 
"No,  baptism  is  not  tied  to  the  eighth  day, 
because  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  circum- 
cision." They  argue  that,  though  the  rela- 
tion does  exist  between  circumcision  and 
baptism,  Fidus'  conclusion  does  not  follow. 
That  we  may  more  fully  rebut  the  asser- 
tions of  this  author  concerning  the  early 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  we  will  briefly 
add:  that  Bingham  (Origines  Sacra,  book 
XI,  chap.  4,  §.  5  to  12)  cites  the  very 
words  of  eight  authors,  all  of  whom  lived 
before  the  year  of  our  Lord  250,  and  some 
of  whom  were  cotemporary  with  the  Apos- 
tles, from  whom  he  irrefragably  argues  that 
infant  baptism  was  prevalent  when  they 
wrote.     And  Wall,  in  his  history  of  infant 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  Ill 

baptism,  which  this  author  seems  to  have 
used  only  to  pervert,  cites  seven  of  the  same 
authorities,  with  an  eighth  not  cited  by 
Bingham.  So  thai  out  of  the  very  scanty 
literature  of  the  first  250  years,  here  are 
nine  authors  of  antiquity,  who  present  good 
ground  for  asserting  the  prevalence  of  in- 
fant baptism.  From  the  year  250  onward, 
the  number  of  witnesses  is  vastly  increased. 
If  the  reader  would  comprehend  the  strength 
of  this  early  testimony,  he  must  remember 
this  fact,  that  of  authors  who  flourished  and 
wrote  prior  to  the  year  250,  and  any  of 
whose  works  are  now  extant,  Mosheim 
mentions  only  about  twenty.  His  list  is 
nearly  exhaustive.  0?  these,  there  are 
several  whose  extant  works  are  exceedingly 
brief,  a  mere  letter,  or  fragment.  This 
being  the  amount  of  the  early  literature 
still  surviving,  could  more  testimony  to  in- 
fant baptism  be  reasonably  expected? 

We  shall  close  this  department  of  our  re- 
view by  reference  to  one  more  assertion  of 
the  railing  pedagogue,  whose  cool  impu- 
dence really  quite  took  away  our  breath 
when  we  read  it.     See  pages  166,  167. 

"The  fathers,  (as  they  are  called,)  that 
is,  the  earliest  writers  among  the  Christians, 


112  REVIEW  OF 

whose  works  have  come  down  to  us,  were 
all  Baptists.  It  was  near  three  hundred 
years  before  there  were  any  professed  Chris- 
tians who  were  not  Baptists."  Now,  as  we 
read  these  astonishing  words,  we  thought 
to  ourselves;  This  is  but  a  play  upon  the 
word  Baptist;  He  means  no  more  than  to 
state  in  an  ad-captandum  way  (very  far,  in- 
deed, from  being  honest)  the  fact  that 
many  of  the  fathers,  among  their  numerous 
and  more  important  points  of  difference 
from  modern  Immersionists,  agreed  with 
them  in  this  one,  that  they  also  were  infect- 
ed with  the  Hydromania.  On  this  supposi- 
tion, the  assertion  seemed  rash  enough,  and 
we  thought  that  surely;  ''the  force  of  na- 
ture could  no  farther  go."  But  no:  on  the 
next  page  he  adds  that  Roman  Catholic, 
Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  Dutch  Reformed, 
and  Presbyterian  writers,  "have  openly, 
plainly,  and  repeatedly  declared,  as  histo- 
rians, that  the  Apostolic  churches  were,  in 
their  membership — ordinances,  organiza- 
tion, and  government,  just  such  as  the  Bap- 
tist churches  are  now — I  say  I  might  give 
this  authority,  but  1  will  refer  you  to  the 
same  source  from  which  they,  as  historians, 
derived  their  information.     I  say  the  Chris- 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  113 

tian  fathers,  for  the  first  three  centuries, 
were  Baptists,  because  these  fathers  say  so 
themselves." 

Whew! !  This  then,  is  the  sweeping  pro- 
position ;  that  the  fathers  themselves  say  the 
Apostolic  churches  were,  and  continued  for 
three  centuries,  just  such  as  the  modern  Im- 
mersionist  churches,  in  their  membership,  or- 
dinances, organization,  and  government.  Ah, 
incautious  Courtney,  if  you  had  known  any- 
thing at  all  of  these  fathers,  of  whom  you 
pretend  to  know  so  much  before  these  in- 
nocent, gullible  souls;  even  your  immea- 
surable brass,  and  reckless  hardihood  in 
fibbing,  would  not  have  thrust  you  into 
such  an  unfortuate  assertion.  But  let  us 
see  what  these  fathers  of  the  first  three 
centuries  were,  as  to  the  particulars  above 
named.  That  the  most  of  them  stickled 
for  much  water  in  baptism  is  true;  bat  it 
was  rather  a  good  scouring  than  a  complete 
immersion,  which  they  liked.  The  views  of 
the  great  body  of  them  as  to  the  necessity 
of  an  immersion  or  washing  all  over,  to 
constitute  a  valid  baptism,  we  have  seen 
stated  by  Cyprian.  The  bulk  of  them  also 
practised  and  applauded  infant  baptism ; 
(baptizing  the  infants  by  immersion  more 
uniformly  than  the  adults.)  Here  then,  is 
8 


114  REVIEW   OF 

one  great  difficulty  between  you,  Brother 
Courtney,  and  your  ancient  brethren — In 
spite  of  all  your  scolding,  the  fact  remains, 
that  they  were  usually  guilty  of  all  the 
enormities  of  Baby-dipping.  And  then,  as 
to  the  mode  of  baptism,  it  is  indisputable 
that  these  primitive  "Baptists,"  differed 
from  their  modern  brethren,  in  the  follow- 
ing particulars,  (which  the  schoolmaster  of 
course  considers  wholly  trivial,  yea  micro- 
scopic in  importance.)  They  accompanied 
their  baptism  with  an  anointing  with  oil, 
(Do  you,  oh  Pedagogue?)  See  Bingham, 
Origines  Sacra,  Book  XI,  chapter  9,  §.  1. 
They  also  signed  the  baptized  person  with 
the  sign  of  the  Cross.  See  §.  3.  They 
consecrated  the  water  beforehand  with  which 
the  person  was  to  be  baptized,  by  pronounc- 
ing an  invocation  over  it,  and  marking  it 
with  the  sign  of  the  Cross.  Chapter  10,  §. 
1,  3.  Again ;  all  persons,  men,  women, 
children,  were  baptized  stark  naked,  as 
modern  Immersionist  writers  expressly  ad- 
mit. (Does  the  Psedagogue  advocate  this?) 
See  chapter  11,  §.  1,  2,  and  Book  II,  chap. 
22,  §.  8.  The  subject  was  dipped  three 
times  usually  ;  once  at  the  name  of  each 
person  of  the  Trinity — §.  6.  The  baptism 
was  then  followed  by  an  imposition  of  the 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  115 

Bishop's  hands,  connected  with  another 
unction,  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost.  Chap.  3. 
Then  the  baptized  person  was  clothed  in  a 
white  garment,  sometimes  carried  lighted 
candles  in  his  hands,  received  the  kiss  of 
peace,  and  tasted  a  little  honey  and  milk. 
See  chapter  4.  Such  was  the  baptism  of 
Mr.  Courtney's  primitive  brethren!  All 
these  superstitious  additions  were  invented 
before  the  expiration  of  that  third  century, 
within  which  he  claims  all  the  good  people 
as  of  his  sect.  Such  is  the  suspicious  com- 
pany in  which  we  first  find  the  practice  of 
dipping  unmistakeably  described.  Does  it 
not  seem  very  probable  that  the  dipping 
originated  in  the  same  growing  supersti- 
tion, which  invented  the  chrism,  the  cross- 
ing, the  stripping,  the  blessing  of  the  wa- 
ter, and  the  white  robe? 

But  we  proceed:  whereas  the  schoolmas- 
ter claims  that  all  these  churches  of  the 
first  three  centuries  were  just  such  as  his 
own,  in  their  membership,  all  the  ancient 
writers  concur  in  saying  that  the  members 
were  universally  divided  into  two  classes, 
full  communicants  and  Catechumens.  See 
Bingham,  Book  X,  chap.  1,  the  latter  of 
whom  were  subject  to  church  discipline,  and 
were   carried  through  a  separate  course  of 


116  REVIEW   OF 

religious  instruction,  but  were  never  allowed 
to  witness  a  baptism  or  Lord's  Supper. 
This  is  very  much  like  the  modern  Immer- 
sionist  churches,  is  it  not?  Again;  not  to 
repeat  the  fact  that  infant  baptism  intro- 
duced multitudes  of  infants  into  the  mem- 
bership, it  is  abundantly  testified  by  most 
respectable  writers  from  the  year  250  down- 
wards, that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  common- 
ly given  to  infants;  (another  irrefagable 
proof  of  the  prevalence  of  infant  baptism, 
by  the  way,)  and  that,  with  the  approba- 
tion of  nearly  all.  See  Bingham,  Book  XII, 
chap.  1,  §.  3,  and  Book  XV,  chap.  4.  §.  7. 
Does  brother  Courtney  "fellowship"  this? 
But  the  hardy  Courtney  asserts  also  that 
the  primitive  church  of  the  first  three  cen- 
turies was  identical  with  his,  in  its  ordinances. 
Let  us  see  Bingham  (Book  XV,  chap.  7,) 
concurs  with  all  the  other  learned  antiqua- 
ries in  saying,  that  these  Christians  cele- 
brated love/easts  in  their  churches  for  seve- 
ral centuries,  beginning  from  a  very  early 
date.  Do  modern  Immersionists  practise 
this?  Little  need  be  said  about  the  early 
observance  of  Easter  and  Whitsuntide;  to 
which  after  a  little,  Christmas  and  Epiphany 
were  added;  or  of  the  Lenten  fast  preceding 
Easter,  of  which   we   find  traces  almost  as 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  ill 

early  as  the  first  uninspired  literature.  The 
first  two  festivals  were  generally  observed 
as  early  as  A.  D.  150.  (See  Bingham,  Book 
XX,  chap.  5.)  And  then,  time  would  fail 
us  to  recite  all  the  superstitious  fasts ;  (as 
the  Wednesday  and  Friday  fasts)  the  ritual 
of  penance  and  absolution  ;  the  repeated  im- 
positions of  handsand  confirmations,  &c.  <%c, 
of  which  the  prevalence  before  A.  D.  300, 
is  testified  by  the  general  current  of  fathers. 
Of  course,  as  the  consistent  Courtney  claims 
all  the  Catholic  churches  as  exactly  like 
himself,  he  also  practises  all  these ! 

They  were  exactly  like  him,  he  says  also, 
in  organization  and  government.  Now  it  is 
well  known  that  modern  Immersionists  are' 
Independents  in  Church  Government;  and 
most  strenuous  assertors  of  the  parity  of 
the  ministry;  which  they  carry  so  far  as  to 
exclude  ruling  elders.  Nor  do  they  attri- 
bute any  authority  than  that  of  mere  fra- 
ternal advice,  to  any  representative  church 
court  above  the  simple  church  meeting. 
Now  the  very  earliest  uninspired  remains, 
(See  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  A.  D.  117.)  de- 
scribe all  the  churches  as  having  the  three 
orders  of  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons. 
When  we  come  down  to  the  times  of  Mr. 
Courtney's   very   familiar  friends,  Cyprian 


118  REVIEW    OF 

and  F(r)idus,  Cornelius  and  Novatus,  about 
A.  D.  245,  we  find  Diocesan  Episcopacy  al- 
most universal.  We  need  hardly  insult  the 
reader  by  offering  proof  of  this;  but  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  mav  be  as  ignorant  aa 
the  Pedagogue,  we  cite  Bingham,  Book  IX, 
chap.  6;  Eusebius  Hist.  Eceles.,  Book  VI, 
chap.  43.  At  the  latter  place,  the  Peda- 
gogue may  find  a  letter  from  his  friend  Bp. 
Cornelius  of  Rome,  against  the  clinically 
baptized  Novatus,  in  which  a  statement  of 
the  organization  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  given — says  Cornelius:  ''This  assertor 
of  the  gospel  then  did  not  know  that  there 
should  be  but  one  Bishop  in  a  Catholie 
church!  In  which  however,  he  well  knew, 
(for  how  could  he  be  ignorant?)  that  there 
were  forty-six  Elders,  seven  Deacons,  seven 
sub- Deacons,  forty-two  Acolyths,  Exorcists, 
readers  and  Janitors  in  all  hfty-two»"  &c. 
Of  course  the  Immersionist  church  (or  do 
they  not  say  churches ?)  of  Nashville  is  or- 
ganized on  this  primitive  Baptist  model, 
with  a  prelatic  Bishop  (Rev.  J.  R.  Graves 
is  the  man,  perhaps!)  Elders,  Deacons, 
sub-Deacons,  Acolyths,  Exorcists,  Readers 
and  Janitors.  If  so,  then,  we  pray  you, 
good  Exorcists  of  Nashville,  why  did  you 
not  cast  out  the  lying  spirit  out  of  the  mouth 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  119 

of  your  prophet  Courtney,  before  he  was 
regenerated  in  the  holy  water  of  baptism? 
And  then,  not  only  was  the  church  govern- 
ment of  the  third  century  prelatic,  there 
were  the  councils,  which  met  frequently, 
and  legislated  for  the  churches  in  a  most 
un- congregational  manner.  If  the  good 
reader  would  know  something  of  them,  let 
him  consult  Bingham,  Book  II,  chapters  14 
to  16.  He  will  there  find  that  they  met 
statedly,  from  an  early  date,  in  every  arch- 
bishoprick,  and  legislated  authoritatively 
for  the  churches  under  their  care. 

But  we  fear  our  refutation  grows  tedious 
by  its  very  fulness:  we  will  therefore  briefly 
close  by  remarking  that  the  doctrines  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  and  in  general,  of 
sacramental  grace,  of  the  real  presence  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  of  penance  and  purgato- 
rial sufferings  beyond  the  grave,  were  ge- 
nerally held  before  the  end  of  the  third 
century.  Such  were  the  churches  which  we 
hear  thus  claimed  as  the  same  in  member- 
ship, ordinances,  organization  and  govern- 
ment, with  the  modern  Immersionists?  The 
inference  which  is  to  be  drawn  as  to  the 
ignorance  and  recklessness  of  thi3  author, 
need  hardly  be  stated.  But  there  is  an- 
other inference   which  we  will  state.     See- 


120  REVIEW   OF 

ing  that  corruptions  and  departures  from 
the  Bible  model  early  became  so  numerous, 
so  great,  and  so  general,  how  much  is  the 
testimony  worth,  which  the  fathers  of  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries  bear  in  favor  of 
their  general  (not  universal)  attachment  to 
dipping?  It  is  worthless.  The  authority  of 
these  fathers  is  of  little  value  for  determin- 
ing apostolic  usages  and  doctrines:  and 
when  it  comes  in  collision  with  the  more 
sure  word  of  Scripture,  as  in  this  case  of 
trine  immersion,  it  is  worthless.  Paedobap- 
tists  therefore  depend  chiefly  on  the  Bible 
argument. 

11.  We  suppose  that  the  historical  and 
literary  unfaithfulness  of  this  book  is  now 
sufficiently  exposed,  as  well  as  its  unscru- 
pulous sophistries.  Many  other  arguments 
remain  unnoticed  by  us,  and  many  other 
falsifications  of  testimony;  of  which  the  ex- 
posure would  be  just  as  easy  for  us,  and 
crushing  for  the  author,  as  of  those  above 
mentioned.  We  beg  our  readers  to  be- 
lieve, that  if  there  is  any  other  bold  asser- 
tion or  pretended  argument  in  the  book, 
which  strikes  him  as  unfavorable  to  Pres- 
byterians, if  true;  we  have  passed  it  over, 
not  because  there  is  any  difficulty  in  dis- 
proving it;  but  because  we  suppose  enough 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  121 

has  been  said.  Why  should  the  intelligent 
reader  be  led  through  a  longer  series  of 
detected  falsehoods,  and  sophistries,  to  the 
increase  of  his  weariness  and  disgust? — 
Doubtless  he  is,  before  this  time,  sufficient- 
ly nauseated  with  the  "Heroine  of  Faith/' 
to  be  ready  to  thrust  her  into  the  fire,  pic- 
ture, ringlets  and  all! 

But  the  ends  of  righteousness  would  be 
betrayed  if  we  did  not  advert  to  another 
glaring  feature  of  this  evil  book.  This  is 
its  harsh  invective,  aimed  at  most  respecta- 
ble Protestant  denominations,  and  at  many 
of  the  best  and  holiest  men  whom  God  has 
given  to  the  church.  Let  me  give  only  a 
few  specimens  among  many.  On  page  50, 
(Theodosia  Earnest.)  the  heroine  exclaims: 
''Stop  Mr.  Percy !  Pray  stop,  and  let  me 
think  a  moment.  Can  it  be  possible  that 
a  good  man,  a  pious  minister  of  Jesus 
Christ,  could  dare  to  trifle  thus  with  the 
holy  Word  of  God?  Oh  it  is  wonderful!" 
&c.  The  civil  Courtney  then  proceeds  to 
relieve  her  astonishment,  by  assuring  her 
that  she  is  only  beginning  to  get  a  little 
taste  of  the  iniquities  of  her  Psedobaptist 
Doctors  of  Divinity.  Again;  page  52, — 
Theodosia  is  made  to  say;  "I  begin  to 
think  that  Theological   writers   are  not  to 


122  REVIEW   OP 

be  relied  on  at-all" — (Right:  sapient  maid; 
especially  if  they  are  of  the  Carson-Court- 
ney school.)  On  page  60,  the  latter  au- 
thority says:  "They"  (Presbyterian  Doc- 
tors) "don't  think  their  church  can  be  wrong; 
and  they  twist,  pervert  and  torture  the 
Scriptures,  as  you  have  seen  Mr.  Barnes 
do,  or  openly  set  aside  their  teachings  as  a 
matter  of  'indifterency,'  as  we  have  seen 
Dr.  Chalmers  do.  in  order  to  continue  the 
usage  of  the  church"  Again:  on  page  176, 
the  uncle  of  the  niece,  Prof.  Jones,  is  made 
to  exclaim  in  italics,  "Can  it  be  possible  that 
Doctors  of  Divinity  will  impose  such  falsehoods 
on  their  people  in  order  to  sustain  the  practice 
of  the  church?''' 

But  the  gall  of  the  pious  Pedagogue  is 
more  especially  stirred  when  he  comes  to 
denounce  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 
Having  then  an  audience  of  women  before 
whom  to  display  his  prowess,  his  crustiness 
mounts  up  to  actual  profanity;  and  he  fairly 
earns  for  himself  a  crowning  title.  Hear 
then  the  cursing;  Courtney,  as  his  indigna- 
tion waxes  dire  against  the  enormities  of 
"baby-sprinkling,"  on  pages  302,  304,  309. 

"In  the  first  place,  if  you  will  excuse  me 
for   talking    so   plainly,  infant  baptism^  as 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  123 

practised  by  Presbyte?ia.ns  in  this  country,  is 
a  continually  repeated  falsehood  !" 

"I  say  in  the  next  place  that,  the  baptism 
of  an  infant  is  an  act  of  high-handed  rebel- 
lion against  the  Son  of  God." 

"I  will  now  say  even  more  than  this;  in- 
fant baptism  is  impious — it  is  an  act  of  sa- 
crilege." 

We  can  hardly  surmise  whether  the  read- 
er will  feel  most  of  indignation  or  disgust, 
when  he  finds  the  author,  amidst  the  clos- 
ing sentences  of  his  book,  concluding  this 
tirade  of  misrepresentations  and  denuncia- 
tions with  a  mock-sanctimonious  modera- 
tion. 

'•We  have  finished  our  ten  night's  study 
of  Scripture  baptism.  We  have  examined 
it  in  regard  to  its  mode,  its  subjects,  and 
its  results.  We  have  endeavored  to  do  it 
plainly  and  candidly,  but  if  wTe  know  our 
own  hearts,  we  have  tried  to  do  it  kindly — 
and  in  the  spirit  of  that  'charity'  which  're- 
joices in  the  truth.' " 

Reader,  is  not  this  cool?  Does  it  not  re- 
mind you  of  the  audacity  described  by  the 
wise  man,  Prov.  xxx:  20,  "Such  is  the  way 
of  an  adulterous  woman;  she  eateth,  and 
wipeth  her  mouth,  and  saith,  I  have  done 
no  wickedness."     As  to  the  fiery  denuncia- 


124  REVIEW   OF 

tions  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism  applied, 
according  to  God's  ordinance,  to  the  seed 
of  believers,  we  are  not  concerned  to  rebut 
them.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  pages 
indicated,  he  will  find  that  infant  baptism 
is  charged  as  "a  falsehood,"  "a  rebellion," 
"an  impiety,"  because  we  administer  it, 
among  other  meanings,  to  signify  admission 
to  church-membership,  regeneration,  and 
remission  of  sins,  in  all  of  which  applica- 
tions to  infants  the  author  holds  it  to  be  an 
absurdity.  But  will  even  the  bold  school- 
master deny  that  God  commanded  circumcis- 
ion to  be  administered  to  infants?  Then  let 
him  turn  to  Gen.  xvii:  11  ;  Deut.  xxx:  6; 
Rom.  iv:  11;  Col.  ii:  11,  and  he  will  see  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  declares  circumcision  to  have 
been  a  sign  and  seal  of  membership  in  the 
visible  church,  of  regeneration,  and  of  justifi- 
cation. Was  infant-circumcision  therefore, 
also  a  "continually  repeated  falsehood,"  an 
"act  of  high  handed  rebellion,"  an  "impiety 
and  sacrilege?"  "He  that  rcproveth  God,  let 
him  answer  it!  Job.  xl:  2.  We  now  take  our 
farewell  of  this  author,  leaving  him  to  set- 
tle his  grievous  accusations  against  the  ad- 
mission of  infants  to  this  sacrament,  with 
the  Almighty. 

We  do  not  profess  to  have  dealt  tenderly 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  125 

with  this  work;  for  it  deserves  and  demands, 
not  forbearance,  but  righteous  indignation 
and  chastisement.  Our  only  scruple  has 
been  whether  it  truly  deserves  so  much  no- 
tice as  the  effectual  exposure  of  its  errors 
has  required,  or  whether  it  should  be  left 
to  run  its  ignominious  course,  and  work  its 
temporary  mischiefs,  unchecked  save  by  its 
own  outrages  and  the  contempt  which  they 
will  ultimately  awaken.  But  we  wish  here 
expressly  to  remind  the  reader  that  we  have 
diligently  distinguished  between  this  wicked 
book,  and  the  religious  denomination,  of 
whose  peculiarities  it  is  an  attempted  de- 
fence. The  book  we  denounce  as  an  out- 
rage, of  the  denomination  we  wish  we  could 
say  nothing,  but  that  we  regard  it  as  a  true 
branch  of  Christ's  Church,  containing  a 
multitude  of  true  children  of  God,  whom 
we  would  fain  honor  and  love  as  such,  not- 
withstanding our  differences.  We  would  be 
glad  to  hold  this  author  and  his  publisher 
alone  responsible  for  the  sin  and  disgrace 
of  such  a  publication  as  Theodosia  Earnest. 
But  alas;  the  Immersionist  churches  of  our 
country  have  unfortunately  chosen  to  make 
a  use  of  it  which  renders  this  forbearance 
impossible.  We  are  told  on  all  hands  that 
the  denomination  generally  have  circulated 


120  REVIEW   OF 

it  with  diligence,  that  they  have  obtruded 
it  on  Presbyterians  in  an  offensive  and 
proselyting  spirit,  and  that  not  only  indi- 
viduals, but  their  church  colporteurs  circu- 
late it  with  a  zeal  hardly  second  to  that 
with  which  they  diffuse  the  VVord  of  God ! 
The  volume  in  our  possession  claims  to  be 
the  eighteenth  thousand.  A  colporteur  of 
that  noble  and  Catholic  Society,  the  Ameri- 
can Tract  Society  told  us,  that  he  once  en- 
tered the  house  of  a  decent  family  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  offered  to  its  mother,  his  Evan- 
gelical stores — "I  have  a  book,"  replied 
the  old  lady,  "which  I  would  not  give  for 
all  yours,  which  I  got  from  a  colporteur 
lately."  Here  she  produced  Theodosia  Earn- 
est. "I  do  think  it  is  the  best  book  I  ever 
read  in  my  life,  except  the  Bible!"  Thus 
it  seems,  Ecclesiastical  agencies  are  employ- 
ed by  one  of  the  sisterhood  of  religious  de- 
nominations, [professing  to  serve  the  same 
Saviour,  and  aspire  to  the  same  heaven,] 
not  in  the  work  of  self-defence,  and  of  in- 
structing her  own  members  in  her  sincerely- 
held  peculiarities,  (for  this  would  be  legiti- 
mate;) but  in  the  propagation  of  abuse, 
prejudices  and  hatred  in  uninformed  minds 
against  their  Pa?dobaptist  brethren,  and  in 
the  most  aggressive  and  discourteous  as- 


THEODOSIA    EARNEST.  127 

sault  possible,  against  others  outside  their 
pale.  We  shall  not  characterize  this  action 
of  the  Immersionist  denomination — let  us 
treat  it  with  the  forbearance  due  to  breth- 
ren misguided.  But  fidelity  requires  us  to 
call  the  reader's  attention  to  its  features, 
that  he  may  estimate  its  character  for  him- 
self. This  is  the  chosen  vehicle  then,  for 
the  propagation  of  Immersionist  views:  a 
work  of  fiction  the  vehicle  of  sacred  truth; 
and.  that  a  work  most  offensively  aggressive 
in  its  whole  aim  and  structure,  of  which  the 
very  plot  is  an  insulting  bravado  over  Pres- 
byterians, founded  as  it  is  on  a  case  of  fic- 
titious triumph  over  them  ;  a  work  marked 
by  the  most  disgraceful  dishonesty  and  per- 
version of  facts ;  a  work  of  fiery  invective 
and  malignant  slander  ;  and  withal  a  work 
as  disgraceful  to  the  denomination  by  its 
lack  of  scholarship  as  by  its  indecency. 
Have  the  Immersionists  no  scholars  to  fight 
their  battles,  who  have  knowledge  enough 
to  escape  the  absurd  literary  blunders  we 
have  noted?  -'Walls  History  of  John  the 
Baptist."  "The  Pope's  Legislature  at 
Ravema,  A.  D.  1311,"  (a  title,  we  venture 
to  affirm,  which  would  astonish  every  Papal 
Canon  Lawyer,  when  applied  to  a  Metro- 
politan   Council,)    "Tertullian    Bishop    of 


128  REVIEW   OP 

Carthage,"  (an  office  he  never  held,)  "Cyp- 
rian's letter  to  Fridus,"  (for  Fidus,)  &c.,&c. 
The  ignorance  of  early  authorities  which 
are  used  with  so  much  pretended  familiari- 
ty, while  rothing  was  really  known  of  them 
by  the  author  has  been  already  exposed. 
Those  citations  were  evidently  picked  up  at 
third,  or  possibly,  at  tenth  hand,  from 
wretched,  compilations  of  pretended  histo- 
ry, whose  literary  credit  was  exploded  again 
and  again,  and  so  long  ago,  that  all  scholars 
had  dismissed  them  to  the  subterranean 
caverns  of  forgetfulness. 

Now  we  ask:  Reader,  is  this  the  sort  of 
weapon  which  Immersionists  put  forward, 
as  their  best  implement  of  denominational 
warfare?  Then  they  must  think  that  their 
cause  is  at  a  low  ebb  indeed  !  Surely  noth- 
ing less  than  desperation  would  have  led 
them  to  clutch  so  sorry  a  dependence,  and 
so  to  violate  the  courtesies  and  amenities  of 
denominational  intercourse!  Let  us  illus- 
trate the  nature  of  this  polemic  assault. 
The  High  Church  Episcopalians  are  not 
noted  for  peculiar  courtesy  and  forbearance 
towards  other  Protestant  churches,  in  their 
denominational  warfare.  But  some  years 
ago  when  similar  objections  were  urged 
against  the  official  circulation  of  a  polemic 


ffiEObOSIA  EAfeNESl?.  129 

work,  not  one-ten th  part  so  offensive  to 
Presbvterians,  as  this  Theodosia  Earnest, 
the  book  of  Mr.  Flavel  S.  Mines,  that  cir- 
culation was  discontinued  by  the  Episcopal 
authorities,  and  the  book  was  suppressed-, 
so  far  as  the  ecclesiastical  publication  of  it 
went.  Mr.  Mines  professed  to  give  the 
reasons  which  had  influenced  him,  and,  he 
surmised,  were  influencing  three  hundred 
other  Presbyterian  ministers,  to  pass  into 
the  Episcopal  communion.  Presbyterians 
objected  that  his  tone  was  offensive  to  us, 
that  his  statements  of  fact  were  heedless 
and  inaccurate,  and  that  the  very  form  of 
the  book  was  aggressive  towards  us.  The 
consequence  was,  that  High  Church  au- 
thorities retracted  their  use  of  it  against 
us  5  although  they  deny  to  us  validity  of 
ministry  and  ordinances,  and  the  very  cha- 
racter of  a  church.  Now,  will  our  protest 
against  a  case  ten  times  a*  offensive  as  Mr. 
Mines'  book,  induce  the  High  Church  Im- 
mersionist  to  recede?     We  shall  see. 

12.  Our  readers  were  informed  at  the 
outset,  that  we  did  not  propose  to  write  a 
complete  argument  on  baptism,  because  we 
considered  it  unnecessary.  But  we  shall 
beg  leave  to  state  with  some  degree  of  ful- 
ness three  ideas,  to  which  as  we  suppose,  it 
9 


130  REVIEW   OF 

is  desirable  the  minds  of  Presbyterians 
should  be  very  distinctly  directed  at  this 
time. 

(a.)  A  part  of  the  boldness  and  success  of 
Immersionists  has  been  occasioned  by  the 
indifference  of  Presbyterians  to  the  narrow 
and  comparatively  trivial  subject  of  the 
inode  of  baptism.  This,  indifference,  though 
injurious  in  its  results,  was  in  truth  noble 
in  its  motive.  It  is  not  the  spirit  of  Pres- 
byterians, to  attach  importance  to  ritualism; 
and  the  question  of  the  more  or  less  water 
in  baptism,  where  the  substance  and  mean- 
ing of  the  sacrament  were  retainedt  we  pro- 
perly regarded  as  a  matter  of  ritualism. 
To  attach  importance  to  such  things,  was 
alien  from  the  temper  of  Presbyterianism, 
as  it  is  from  the  temper  of  the  N.  Testament. 
The  liberal  principles  of  Presbyterians, 
one  of  the  most  catholic  of  all  denomi- 
nations in  its  admission  of  all  other  denomi- 
nations which  retain  any  substance  of  sav- 
ing truth,  as  sisters  in  the  visible  church 
Catholic,  also  induced  us  to  treat  the  pe- 
culiarities of  other  classes  of  brethren  in  the 
body  of  Christ,  with  a  forbearance  which 
seemed  almost  to  overlook  the  right  of  self- 
defence  against  them.  But  now  we  must 
treat  immersion  as  an  important  matter,  not 


THE0D03U   EAENEST.  131 

because  it  is  so  in  itself;  but  because  Ini- 
mersionists  will  persist  in  making  it  so,  by 
assailing  "the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free."  Presbyterians  should  there- 
fore be  better  informed  concerning  the 
modes  in  which  their  usage  is  attacked  and 
defended.  We  would  say  emphatically  that 
one  of  the  prominent  objects  now  in  our 
view,  is  to  call  attention  to  the  many  ex- 
cellent and  accessible  works  (the  existence 
of  which  has  rendered  a  formal  argument 
-of  the  merits  of  the  question  unnecessary  on 
our  part:)  and  to  urge  Presbyterian  read- 
ers to  procure  and  study  some  of  them. 
We  shall  be  pardoned  for  calling  attention 
just  here,  to  a  very  clever  and  creditable 
book,  published  by  a  "member  of  the  Ala- 
bama Conference,"  in  answer  to  Theodosia 
Earnest.  It  is  entitled  "Theoph'lt/s  Wal- 
ton;" and  under  the  cover  of. a  very  simple 
plot,  introduces  a  discussion  of  most  of  the 
points  made  by  the  Immersionist.  While 
we  d<>  not  approve  of  the  imitation  of  the 
bad  precedent  of  teaching  truth  by  hVtion, 
not  even  for  purposes  of  refutation,  it  must 
still  be  said  that  the  expedient  is  usnd  by 
the  author  of  Theophilus  Walton  in  an  in- 
offensive mannpr:  the  plot  is  so  simple  that 
it  is  but  little  more  than  a  thread  to  connect 


1#2  KEflEW   Ofl" 

the  successive  discussions?  and  tile?  temped 
of  the  book  is  eminently  pleasant  and  for-* 
bearing.  While  we  would  not  vouch  for 
the  soundness  of  all  the  positions  assumed, 
the  argument  is  generally  sound  and  inge-* 
nious.  We  can  assure  the  reader  that  if 
he  has  been  vexed  at  the  glaring  sophistries 
and  falsehoods  of  Theodosia  Earnest,  he 
will  find  in  the  perusal  of  this  reply,  amuse- 
ment and  satisfaction,  which  will  fully  com- 
pensate his  previous  annoyance. 

There  are  then,  several  other  work?/ 
which  can  be  procured  at  almost  any  book- 
store, which  will  be  found  timely  and  con- 
clusive. Among  the  smaller  of  these  may 
be  mentioned  Hunt's  Bible  Baptist,  and  Dr. 
Daniel  Baker's  treatise  on  Baptism.  Next 
will  be  found  a  small  duodecimo  volume, 
published  by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of 
Publication,  and  written  by  Dr.  Fairchild. 
This  little  work  can  hardly  be  too  much 
commended,  for  its  simplicity  of  atyJe,  con- 
densation of  matter,  and  Christian  temper* 
Here,  in  the  compass  of  a  hundred  and 
seventy-five  little  pages,  and  expressed  with 
a  perspicuity  level  to  the  capacity  of  a  child, 
the  reader  will  find  a  discussion  which  meets 
almost  every  point  usually  advanced  by  Im- 
tnersionists,  and   meets  them  triumphantly. 


t:hboposia  earnest.  133 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  pursue  his  examina- 
tion farther,  we  would  commend  to  him 
Taylor'' s  Apostolic  Baptism,  a  work  of  un=- 
surpassed  vigor  of  logic,  and  profound 
learning.  Yet  this  also  is  a  duodecimo  vo== 
ume,  written  by  the  learned  Editor  of  Cal- 
met's  Dictionary,  and  published  in  America 
in  cheap  form.  So  far  as  we  are  informed, 
both  English  and  American  Immersionista 
have  treated  this  work  ever  since  its  publi- 
tion  with  a  prudent  silence;  although  invited 
to  disprove  its  facts  or  refute  its  rea&onjngs, 
by  the  author. 

But  last.,  and  ehiefest,  we  would  commend 
to  our  readers  another  work  produced  by 
one  of  our  living  ministers  in  Virginia; 
Armstrong  on  Baptism.  In  this  book,  ad- 
mirable alike  for  its  plan,  its  temper,  its 
ability,  and  its  manly  scholarship,  the  au- 
thor leaves  aside  all  the  learned  lumber  of 
Rabbinical  and  Patristic  usages,,  except  so 
far  as  they  illustratrate  Scripture.,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  expound  one  by  one  the  passages 
of  the  Word  of  God,  where  the  Sacrament 
of  baptism  enters.  When  he  has  completed 
this,  he  stops ;  and  leaves  the  faith  of  his 
reader  resting  upon  the  word  of  God  alone. 
E^ery  Presbyterian  in  the  land  should  pro*- 
cure  this   work,  and  master  its   contents, 


134  REVIEW   OF 

These  works  we  mention,  not  as  exclusive 
of  others,  but  as  the  most  accessible,  brief, 
and  appropriate  to  the  present  stage  of  the 
discussion. 

The  forbearance  of  Presbyterians  has  not 
only  led  them  to  neglect  the  study  of  this 
subject,  but  also  to  yield  tacitly  to  the  ver- 
bal assumptions  of  which  Immersionistshave 
made  such  successful  use.  It  is  not  wonder- 
ful indeed,  that  they  should  be  aggressive, 
boastful,  rampant;  when  Paidobaptists  ao 
neglect  the  duties  growing  out  of  infant 
baptism,  and  so  looaeiy  grant  the  perverted 
and  unscriptural  use  of  language  propaga- 
ted in  the  Protestant  world  by  the  preva- 
lence of  Anabaptist  sentiments.  How  often 
d©  we  hear  Presbyterians,  thoughtlessly 
and  inconsistently  speak  of  a  baptized  per- 
son as  joining  the  church,  when  he  comes  to 
his  first  communion?  He  has  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  from  his  birth  !  How 
often  do  we  hear  the  term  baptism  conceded 
to  Immersionists  as  they  use  it  for  their 
exclusive  dipping?  Yea  we  have  even 
heard  an  adult  Presbyterian  say:  "Did  you 
know  that  Miss  was  baptized  last  Sab- 
bath ?"  when  the  meaning  of  the  question 
was,  that,  the  misguided  young  person  had 
committed  the  great  sin   of  attempting  to 


THEODOSlA  EARNEST.  135 

discredit  and  annul  the  holy  sacrament  of 
baptism  administered  to  her  in  infancy  by 
pious  parents,  by  causing  herself  to  be 
dipped  by  an  Immersionist!  If  God's  peo- 
ple will  thus  betray  God's  truth,  by  a  heed- 
less or  ignorant  use  of  terms;  what  is  the 
wonder,  that  general  misunderstanding  and 
scorn  of  the  truth  should  prevail?  Let  our 
phraseology  be  strictly  reformed ;  it  will  be 
a  preparation  for  the  more  important  re- 
form of  that  neglect  of  the  baptized  mem- 
bers of  God's  Church,  by  which,  as  parents, 
communicants,  and  churcb-officers,  we  so 
much  discredit  this  important  and  benefi- 
cent institution  of  our  God.  In  the  very 
name  which  the  Immersionists  arrogate,  and 
which  we  (with  insensate  stupidity)  concede 
to  them,  there  is  contained  a  petifio  prtrrcb- 
pii,  an  assumption  of  the  point  in  debate, 
which  has  gained  them  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  converts.  They  call  themselves 
Baptists;  as  if  they  forsooth,  alone  of  all 
Christians,  had  that  sacrament  of  God's 
house  !  And  we  re-echo  the  title,  and  speak 
of  tire  in  as  Baptists  ;  as  if  forsooth,  we  ac- 
knowledged the  arrogant  assumption!  But 
the  truth  is,  that  all  the  true  branches  of 
the  Protestant  family,  are  at  least  as  much 
Baptists,  as  those  who  dip.     For  they  use 


136  JtEYIEW   OS 

a  mode,  valid  indeed,  but  less  strictly  scrip-* 
tural  than  ours;  and  they  only  baptize  a 
part  of  those  whom  God  commands  to  bap- 
tize. Nay,  Presbyterians  are  the  Baptists; 
and  they  are  Immersionists.  We  owe  it  to 
ourselves;  yea,  we  owe  it  to  God's  truth,  to 
correct  our  language.  Nor  can  these  breth- 
ren complain  of  the  title  of  Immersionists, 
inasmuch  as  they  themselves  clamorously 
declare  that  immersion  alone  is  baptism. 
Least  of  all  can  they  complain  now,  when 
they  are  actually  engaged  in  manufacturing 
a  new  Bible,  thus  violating  the  catholicity 
of  the  Protestant  family  of  churches,  in 
order  to  get  the  word  Baptize  out  of  the 
English  Scriptures.  They  berate  King 
James'  translators  without  end,  because  they 
retained  this  wicked  Greek  word  'baptize* 
dressed  up  in  English  letters,  in  their  trans- 
lation, instead  of  translating  it  *$»*  as» 
they  say,  should  have  been  done.  And  yet 
Baptist  is  their  chosen  title  for  themselves! 
Now  we  are  determined,  for  one,  gentlemen 
Dippers,  that  you  "shall  not  eat  your  cake 
and  have  it  too."  If  you  say  'Dip'  is  the 
word,  idip'>  let  it  be,  throughout  the  chap- 
ter; and  while  we  call  ourselves  Presbyte- 
rian, Bible  Baptists,  you  shall  be  Immer- 
§ionitis%  or  if  it  likes   \ou  better,  l)<pi>er$t 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  13f 

and  nothing  else.  The  latter  is  indeed  the 
proper  word ;  for  those  who  object  to  'hup- 
tkse,'  as  a  Greek  word  in  English  dress, 
should  still  more  object  to  the  barefaced^ 
and  more  recent  foreigner,  immerse;  which 
is  jet  more  Latin,  than  baptize  is  Greek, 
How  vastly  would  the  great  Immersionist 
denomination  be  shorn  of  its  arrogant  pres- 
tige, if  all  the  Protestant  world  should  take 
them  at  their  word,  and  compel  them  to 
the  consistency  of  going  by  the  name  of 
The  Religious  Denomination  of  Dijjpers? 
Words  have  potent  influence;  as  these  dip- 
ping Christians  know. 

Ard  here  a  word  may  properly  be  intro- 
duced to  show  the  folly  and  insincerity  of 
all  this  movement  for  Bible  Revision.  The 
plea  is,  that  the  Greek  word  must  be  trans- 
lated into  '•immerse,''  and  not  transferred. 
Now  if  it  were  true  that  immerse  is  its  pro- 
per equivalent  (which  we  utterly  deny  as  to 
the  Bible,)  the  plea  would  be  false:  for 
whenever  any  word  receives  an  established 
use  as  the  name  of  an  ecclesiastial  ordi- 
nance, it  has  thereby  undergone  a  change 
of  signification;  it  has  become  a  technical 
word;  it  has  passed  out  of  its  general  into  a 
special  application— Even  the  Immersionist 
does  not  in  truth  regard  \d#p%  as  equivalent 


138  kEVlEW   OF 

to  'baptize.1  He  thinks  baptizing  is  by  dipp- 
ing, but  is  a  dipping  of  different  sort,  mean- 
ing and  intent,  from  dipping  in  general. 
So  that  were  their  pretended  desire  grant- 
ed; were  the  word  immerse  used  throughout 
God's  word;  and  the  popular  language  of 
the  church,  as  the  sacramental  word;  it 
would  immediately  pass  into  a  sacramental 
meaning,  and  would  no  longer  be  significant 
merely  of  node,  as  Immersionists  assert 
bajifizo  was.  It  would  forthwith  require, 
and  receive,  its  definition  as  to  mode. 
Hence,  and  because  of  the  success  which  the 
Immersionists  gain  by  their  unauthorized 
assumption  of  the  exclusive  name  of  Bap- 
tists, we  do  not  believe  that  they  mean  to 
give  up  the  word  'baptize''  in  their  English 
Scriptures.  They  are  not  foolish  enough  to 
do  it:  We  wish  they  would.  We  venture 
the  prediction,  that  the  famous  English  Ver- 
sion of  the  Baptist  Version  Society  will  never 
be  put  into  the  hands  of  their  people  as  a 
Bible  for  use.  Come  gentlemen:  We  dare 
you  to  the  venture!  Expunge  your  pre- 
tended eye-sore,  "Baptize*'  out  of  )our 
popular  version,  if  you  will;  but  then  re- 
member that  when  you  do  that,  you  also 
surrender  that  unauthorized  title,  snatched 
by  a  glaring   sophistry  from  your   brother 


THEODOSIA    EARNEST.  130 

Christians,  the  title  of  Baptists;  which  has 
won  you  more  accessions  from  the  ignorant 
and  unthinking,  than  ever  Constantine's 
Legend,  read  as  he  pretended  in  the  skies, 
(In  hoc  siar/io  vlnce)  secured  for  him  from 
superstitious  Rome.  No.  you  will  not  do  it; 
you  will  use  the  revision  movement  as  a 
good  stone  to  pelt  Piedobaptists  with,  as 
long  as  it  serves  this  turn  ;  and  then  the 
unuttered  and  unutterable  labors  of  Messrs. 
Conant  &  Co.,  will  be  consigned  to  'the 
tomb  of  all  the  Capulets.' 

(6)  The  controversy  now  exciting  atten- 
tion in  America,  between  the  advocates  of 
open  and  close  Communion,  furnishes  us 
with  a  most  just  and  unanswerable  urgu- 
mentiim  ad  hominem,  against  the  Immer- 
sionist  dog-ma.  The  party  of  close  com- 
munion argue  in  substance  thus'  "Nothing 
is  valid  baptism  but  immersion;  therefore 
all  unimmersed  persons  are  unbaptized. — 
But  baptism  is  the  initiatory  sacrament,  as 
all  Christians,  in  all  ages  agree.  None  (in 
customary  cases  at  leas*)  can  properly  ap- 
proach the  Lord's  Table,  except  through 
the  door  of  baptism.  Therefore,  whatever 
our  personal  esteem  and  love  for  the  unim- 
mersed Christians,  we  have  no  option  to 
admit  them  to  the  Lord's   Table."     This 


140  REVIEW   OF 

argument  Inimersionists  say  they  regard  as 
unanswerable;  yea,  they  say  Predobaptists 
themselves  cannot  dispute  the  conclusion  if 
the  premise  is  admitted.  So  be  it,  say  we; 
for  the  present. 

Then  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  the  im- 
mortal argument  of  Eobert  Hall,  which 
begins  from  premises  which  Immersionists 
least  of  all,  can  dispute,  and  proves  to  a  de- 
monstration the  opposite  conclusion.  "The 
visible  church  should  consist  of  true  be- 
lievers; and  should  be  the  organized  coun- 
terpart of  that  portion  of  the  spiritual  body 
of  Christ  which  is  on  earth,  the  effectually 
called.  The  Lord's  Supper  symbolizes  the 
communion  of  true  believers  in  the  spiritual 
feeding  upon  the  atonement  and  redemption 
of  Christ.  Who,  then,  should  partake  of 
the  bread  and  wine?  Those  obviously,  who 
feed  on  Christ  by  faith.  But  multitudes  of 
Paedobaptists  are  obviously  true  believers, 
whose  eminent  faith  and  holiness  we  Im- 
mersionists might  well  emulate.  They  are 
not  immersed,  but  they  obviously  consider 
themselves  as  baptized ;  and  their  error  is 
one  of  those  unconscious  misunderstandings, 
to  which  human  infirmity  subjects  good  men. 
Ten  thousand  noble  instances  of  their  con- 
scientiousness prove   that  they   would   dia 


ffltfOfcOSfA   EARNEST.  141 

sooner  than  disobey  the  Saviour's  command 
to  be  baptized,  if  they  apprehended  it  a9 
we  do.  In  a  word,  Christ  accepts  them* 
and  we  cannot  reject  whom  he  accepts.  Hosv 
can  we,  how  dare  we,  debar  from  his  Sup-4 
per  on  earth,  those  beloved  ones  whom  we 
assuredly  belieye  He  will  welcome  to  the 
marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb?  Is  the  poor 
earthly  table,  the  symbol  of  the  true,  more 
holy  than  that  celestial  Board,  at  which  the 
Redeemer  and  his  glorified  saints  will  drink 
the  wine  new  in  his  kingdom?  How  can  we 
thus  rend  the  united  body  of  Christ,  and  be 
innocent?" 

To  this  argument  also,  all  the  best  and 
noblest  of  Immersionists  minds  have  yield- 
ed, as  unanswerable.  And  ten  thousand  of 
those  who  were  too  bound  by  their  narrow 
system  to  obey  it,  have  yet  responded  to  its 
force,  by  the  anguish,  and  ineradicable  dis- 
satisfaction with  which  their  generous  Chi  is-5 
tian  hearts  have  bowed  to  the  iron  trammels 
of  their  rule.  Ever  since  the  days  when 
those  two  giants,  Hall  and  Fuller,  repre- 
sented the  two  sides  of  open  and  close  com- 
munion, the  great  cause  has  remained  un- 
decided before  the  lmmersionist  public. — ■ 
From  their  premises,  neither  argument  can, 
be  overthrown;  and  yet  both  cannot  be  true  I 


142  REVIEW   OF 

for  they  assert  contradictions.  How  then, 
is  the  strange  result  to  be  explained"?  The 
answer  is  very  plain  to  the  dispassionate 
mind ;  Since  both  trains  of  reasoning  are 
correct,  the  error  must  be  in  the  premises. 
But  the  premises  of  Hall's  argument  are  as 
indisputable  as  the  Gospel:  they  are  but 
the  Gospel  itself.  Then  the  premises  of  the 
other  must  be  false.  It  cannot  be  true  that 
immersion  is  the  only  valid  baptism ;  that 
he  who  has  sincerely,  honestly  complied  with 
Christ's  institution  as  he  supposed,  by  affu- 
sion, is  wholly  unbaptized  in  fact.  Thus, 
the  insuperable  difficulties  with  which  the 
close  communion  theory  is  burdened  in  every 
right  mind,  remain  a  standing  evidence  of 
the  error  of  its  first  principles. 

(c,)  Our  third  remark  is  one  of  which  the 
practical  importance  can  scarcely  be  over- 
estimated by  PresDyterians  in  their  argu- 
ment with  the  Immersionists.  We  should 
always  insist  upon  their  carrying  out  their 
principles  with  consistency,  to  their  legiti- 
mate conclusions:  and  then  the  enormity  and 
error  of  those  principles  will  be  revealed, 
to  their  own  minds  perhaps;  more  certainly 
to  the  minds  of  the  dispassionate  public. 
Jjet  the  reader  bear  in  mind  then,  that  all 
parties  are  agreed,  baptism  is  the  initiatory 


THEODOSIA  EARNEST.  143 

sacrament,  which  gives  membership  in  the 
visible  Church  of  Christ.  The  great  Com- 
mission was:  Go  ye  and  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 
Baptism  constitutes  the  outward  disciple- 
ship.  Least  of  all  will  any  Immersionist 
dispute  this  ground.  Now  if  nothing  is 
baptism  except  immersion,  if  all  other  sup- 
posed forms  are  not  only  irregular,  but  null 
and  worthless,  all  unimmersed  persons  are 
out  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ.  They 
have  no  membership  in  it  whatever.  But 
if  each  and  every  member  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian body  is  unchurched,  that  whole  body 
is  of  course  unchurched.  When  the  potent 
fairy  in  the  fable  turned  each  soldier  of  the 
advancing  army  to  a  mouse,  of  course  there 
was  no  longer  an  army  at  all.  If  each  se- 
parate block  in  the  walls  of  a  house,  which 
is  claimed  to  be  a  stone  house,  is  proved  to 
be  a  brick,  the  house  is  not  a  stone  house. 
No  Immersionist  therefore  can  admit  that 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  a  Presbyteria?i 
church.  The  same  argument  applies  simi- 
larly to  all  Episcopalians,  Lutherans,  Me- 
thodists, Congregationalists;  in  a  word,  to 
all  the  bodies  called  Pa)do baptist.  They 
are  not  churches;  their  claim  to  be  such  is 
a  mistake,  an  assumption,  an  intrusion.    AH 


144  REVIEW  otf 

are  unchurched.  And  of  course,  they  have 
no  ministry.  How  can  a  man  hold  office  in 
that  commonwealth  in  which  he  has  not  ob- 
tained citizenship?  And  how  can  an  unau- 
thorized herd  of  individuals,  aggregated 
illegally  and  irregularly,  confer  valid  office? 
There  are  then,  no  ministers  of  the  gospel 
in  the  world,  except  Immersionist  ministers. 
The  assumption  of  all  others  to  act  as  God's 
ambassadors,  and  to  perform  the  ordinances 
of  His  House,  is  therefore  unauthorised, 
yea  profane  and  wicked.  Ought  a  good 
church-member  then,  to  countenance  them 
as  ministers,  to  encourage  them  in  their 
profane  intrusions,  by  their  presence,  ap- 
probation, and  respect?  Surely  not:  such 
intruders  must  be  treated  by  consistent 
servants  of  God.  in  all  their  protended 
official  doings,  as  they  are  treated  when 
they  propose  to  come  to  the  Lord's  (Im- 
mersionist) Table;  firmly  repelled.  The 
title  of  Reverend  ought  not  to  be  conceded 
to  them,  lest  we  should  become  partakers 
of  their  sins.  And  as  to  the  practice  of 
some  misguided  Christians,  the  practice  of 
employing  these  unbaptized  intruders  to 
preach  and  labor  in  union-meetings,  of  in- 
viting them  to  ascend  the  pulpits  of  God's 
true  (Immersionist)   churches*  to  profane  a 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  145 

sacred  spot  and  sacred  function,  of  sitting 
with  pleased  and  respectful  attention  under 
their  pretended  preaching;  it  is  naught 
but  a  glaring  inconsistency.  No  thinking 
and  honest  church  member  can  be  betrayed 
into  it.  And  whenever  a  P&dobaptist 
minister  sees  the  error  of  his  ways,  and 
comes  into  the  true  (Immersionist)  church, 
he  must  of  course  be  re-baptized,  and  re- 
ordained. 

Again ;  if  these  unauthorized  societies  are 
not  churches,  of  course  they  have  no  sacra- 
ments; for  sacraments  are  ordinances  of  God's 
House.  They  can  not  go  outside  of  the 
pale  of  his  visible  church.  The  same  severe 
sentence  should  therefore  be  passed  by  Im- 
mersionists  on  all  instances  where  they  pre- 
tend to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  which 
the  fiery  pedagogue  passed  upon  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  Since  Christ  has  ordained 
that  (usually  at  leas  )  the  emblems  of  his 
body  and  blood  shall  be  given  to  none  ex- 
cept those  who  have  "followed  him  in  bap- 
tism," all  these  sacraments  are  just  so  pro- 
fane, just  so  false,  just  so  truly  a  rebellion 
against  the  King  of  Zion,  just  so  impious 
and  sacrilegious,  as  is  "baby-sprinkling." 
For  a  member  of  the  true  ([mmersionist) 
church  to  countenance  these  abominations 
10 


146  REVIEW   OF 

by  participating,  ought  therefore  to  be  in 
every  case,  ground  of  stern  discipline;  and 
no  plea  of  the  soft  influences  of  fraternity 
and  love  should  be  permitted  to  interfere 
with  the  dictates  of  high  principle.  All 
these  profane  intrusions  of  the  un  baptized 
into  'things  too  high  for  them,'  should  in- 
deed not  be  visited  with  persecution  and 
civil  penalties,  enormous  as  they  are;  for 
Christ  has  said;  "Vengeance  is  mine;  I  will 
repay."  But  his  servants  are  bound  to 
testify  their  disapprobation  of  them,  in  all 
their  religious  acts  when  they  are  brought 
into  contact  with  these  misguided,  sprinked 
people,  falsely  called  Christians.  Som  of 
them  may  be  at  bottom  good  people;  bufc 
such  cases  must  be  the  exception  and  l  t 
the  rule,  as  in  that  Synagogue  of  Satan,  the 
Romish  Communion;  for  whatever  their 
feelings,  they  are  outside  of  the  visible 
church;  and  out  of  this  there  is  no  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation.  It  is  to  the  church* 
not  the  world,  that  "the  oracles  of  God  are 
committed,"  with  all  their  promises  and 
provisions  of  grace. 

Such  are  the  fair  and  inevitable  results 
of  the  dogma  that  nothing  but  immersion 
is  valid  baptism.  We  defy  human  wit  to 
evade  them  successfully.    All  Paedobaptists 


THEODOSIA    EARNEST.  14? 

therefore  should  press  the  Immersionists 
with  these  odious  consequences,  (as  it  is 
perfectly  fair  and  righteous  we  should)  until 
they  either  avow  them,  or  give  up  their 
odious  dogma.  They  should  be  made  to 
shoulder  the  consequences  of  their  own 
principles  like  men ;  or  else  repudiate  those 
principles  like  men.  Ljet  us  say  to  every 
Immersionist;  '<You  must  treat  me  in  alt 
respects  as  no  church  member,  my  minister 
is  no  minister,  my  sacraments  and  ordinances 
as  profanations  of  sacred  things;  or  else, 
shall  I  say  to  you  in  the  elegant  and  frater- 
nal language  of  the  author  of  Theodosia 
Earnest?  'These  stand  as  your  dogmas  in 
your  Confession  of  Faith,'  and  yet,  in  truth, 
neither  your  ministers  nor  you  have  ever  be- 
lieved them  to  be  such;  or  else  you  are  more 
inconsistent  in  your  conduct  than  sensible 
men  are  often  found  to  be.'"  (Page  236.) 
Come,  gentlemen  Immersionists;  'face  the 
music;'  act  up  to  your  principles;  let  us  have 
no  temporizing  for  popularity's  sake.  Such 
skittishness  in  acting  consistently,  does  not 
become  those  who  have  given  that  super- 
eminent  evidence  of  faith,  obedience  to 
principle,  and  moral  heroism,  "following 
their  Lord  into  the  liquid  grave." 

Yes;  let  Immersionists  be  forced,  by  the 


148  REVIEW   OF 

righteous  pressure  of  truth  and  reason,  to 
act  up  to  their  professed  principles,  and  the 
unthinking  public  will  awaken  to  an  indig- 
nant discovery,  that  the  principles  of  this 
denomination,  so  given  to  make  capital 
among  soft  hearts  and  heads,  by  calling 
itself  a  'poor  and  humble  flock  every  where 
spoken  against,'  is  in  fact,  in  its  principles 
most  intensely  arrogant  of  all  Hii>h  Church 
Sects,  not  excepting  Prelatists;  and  that 
this  denomination,  professedly  most  Pro- 
testant and  thoroughly  reformed,  is  in  fact 
most  intensely  formalistic.  A  clerical  Ish- 
maelite,  Elder  Sledge,  lately  screwed  his 
courage  up  to  the  point  of  acting  out  his 
principles,  just  as  all  Immersionists  should 
act  them  out.  in  the  city  of  Memphis  ;  and 
the  award  of  the  Christian  public  was  one 
of  universal  reprobation.  Even  an  Immer- 
sionist  Editor  (good  thoughtless  soul  ;  he 
had  not  comprehended  the  consequences  of 
his  professed  principles:)  at  a  distance,  de- 
clared that  the  story  must  be  a  quiz  ;  be- 
cause it  was  incredible  that  any  professed 
Protestant  minister  could  be  guilty  of  such 
a  piece  of  atrocity,  worthy  only  of  a  Fejee 
Islander.  Let  the  religious  public  look  at 
the  conclusion  to  which  Imtnersionisui  con- 
ducts us!   Jt  is  this:  that  such  men  as  John 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  149 

Owen,  Kichard  Baxter,  George  Whitefield, 
John  Wesley,  Summerfield,Brainerd,  Henry 
Martyn,  Schwartz,  were  not  ministers  of 
Jesus  Christ;  while  such  blots  on  the  Chris- 
tian name  as  the  Fejee  Sledge,  and  the 
rabid  author  of  Theodosia  Earnest,  and 
every  whiskey  distilling,  and  whiskey  drink- 
ing Ironside,  were.  True,  God  gave  to  the 
former  every  gift  and  grace  which  can  ap- 
proximate man  to  the  Seraphs ;  true  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  fire  was  theirs; 
true  they  wore  out  laborious  lives  in  imita- 
tion of  the  Divine  Prophet  who  "went  about 
doing  good;"  true,  listening  thousands 
drank  from  their  lips  the  streams  of  truth 
and  salvation  which  make  glad  the  city  of 
our  God ;  true,  Jesus  Christ  set  the  seal  of 
his  approbation  upon  their  service  by  pour- 
ing forth  the  Holy  Spirit  through  their 
word,  and  giving  them  a  multitude  of  souls 
for  their  hire;  true,  the  sanctity  of  their 
lives,  and  triumphs  of  their  holy  deaths, 
were  ensamples  for  which  the  people  of  God 
will  bless  him  to  the  latest  age,  and  every 
one  believes  that  they  have  received  the 
award:  "Well  done  good  and  faithful  ser- 
vant," and  have  entered  into  the  joy  of 
their  Lord,  where  they  ever  wear  a  crown 
starred  with  ransomed  souls.     But  for  all 


i50  REVIEW  Otf 

this,  they  were  not  ministers  of  Chrises 
Church;  because,  although  they  supposed 
they  had  complied  fully  with  Christ's  com* 
mand  to  be  baptized,  enough  water  had  not 
been  used !  And  the  same  condemnation 
must  also  be  passed  upon  the  communions 
in  which  they  lived  and  labored.  Those 
bodies  hold  fast  the  Word  of  God,  on  all 
essential  points  except  this  one  point  of  ritu* 
alism;  they  are  orthodox  in  doctrine,  and 
comparatively  pure  in  morals;  their  mem- 
bers have  been  as  abundant  in  every  good 
fruit  of  sanctity  and  benevolence;  their  as- 
semblies are  the  chosen  scenes  for  the  effu* 
sions  of  God's  regenerating  Spirit;  around 
those  communion  tables,  and  baptismal 
founts,  where  are  enacted  their  unauthorized 
and  profane  mimickries  of  God's  sacraments, 
have  flowed  the  purest  floods  of  penitential 
sorrow,  of  fraternal  love,  of  fragrant  contri- 
tion, of  adoring  gratitude,  of  rapturous  joy, 
of  heavenly  hope;  their  preachers  are  the 
ornaments  of  the  pulpit,  and  the  literary 
lights  of  the  religious  world;  their  gifts  and 
labors  have  spread  Bibles  and  missionaries 
into  a  thousand  of  the  dark  places  of  hea- 
thenism, and  are  doing  the  chief  part  of  all 
that  is  done  to  conquer  an  apostate  world 
to  King  Emmanuel ;  in  their  houses  of  wor- 


^HEODOStA   EARNEST.  lol 

ship  tens  of  thousands  of  souls  are  born 
into  the  church  Invisible  and  General  As- 
sembly of  the  First  Born;  and  they  send  up 
to  heaven  from  rejoicing  death  beds,  crown- 
ed with  the  richest  consolations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  a  continuous  harvest  of  ransomed 
souls.  But  they  are  not  true  churches  of 
Christ,  for  all  that !  They  are  effecting,  in 
as  good  measures  as  any  other  society  on 
this  earth,  all  the  purposes  for  which  God 
founded  his  church;  but  they  are  not  true 
churches:  because,  in  an  unconscious  and 
honest  mistake,  they  use  too  little  water  in 
the  outward  part  of  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism.  Yet,  every  Immersionist  society  in- 
fected with  the  barbarity  of  the  Fejee 
Sledge;  every  Ironside,  Antinomian  congre- 
gation, where  the  very  name  of  discipline 
and  sanctity  is  forgotten,  all  the  colored 
churches  of  the  Southern  States,  oversha- 
dowed as  they  are  with  semi-^pagan  igno- 
rance and  delusion,  are  true  churches  of  our 
Holy  Redeemer,  because  forsooth  they  have 
been  baptized  with  enough  water!  Is  this, 
we  pray,  the  spirit  of  Protestantism  of  the 
New  Testament,  of  a  spiritual  dispensation  ? 
Is  it  by  such  a  test  as  this  that  the  pure 
spouse  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to  De  discerned 
from  the   world?     If  so,  what  is   there   of 


152  EEVIEW   OF 

more  intense  ritualism,  what  more  profound- 
ly furmalistic  in  the  dogmas  of  old,  dead, 
wooden,  superstitious  Popery  I  Not  only 
does  the  understanding  reject  such  a  con- 
clusion: the  moral  sense  abhors  it.  But 
this  is  the  conclusion  to  which  every  Immer- 
sionist  must  inevitably  come,  who  consis- 
tently holds  that  nothing  is  baptism  except 
immersion. 

Our  policy  then  should  be  to  hold  them 
to  this  consequence  of  their  creed,  until 
thev  are  villus  to  disavow  that  creed-  Let 
the  whole  community  be  made  to  see  this 
new  form  of  Hign  Cnurchism  unmasked, 
and  to  comprehend  its  deformity.  Sudi  is 
our  confidence  in  tae  solid  good  sense  and 
right  moral  instincts  of  the  people,  we  be- 
lieve this  one  view  will  be  more  rffrcf  I  to 
give  them  proper  views  of  Immersion,  than 
all  the  volumes  of  verbal  criticism  which 
ha>e  ever  been  written  on  the  subject.  Let 
tne  High  Cnurcnisin  of  this  water-doctrine 
be  understood;  and  the  — fjy  s^n>e  ol  jag- 
lice  of  the  American  people  will  consign  ita 
advocates  ultimately  into  that  lean  minori- 
ty, iu  which  we  now  rind  those  ecclesiastical 
Cninacnen,  the  Puseyites.  One  of  the  most 
significant  traiu  uf  tne  novel  under  review 
is  us  evident  squinting  towards  the  extreme 


THEODOSIA   EARNEST.  153 

view  on  this  subject.  We  notice  that  the 
word  church  is  never,  or  very  rarely,  ap- 
plied to  Paedobaptist  communities.  No 
doubt,  its  anonymous  author,  like  its  pub- 
lisher, rejoices  in  the  invidious  title  of  an 
Old-Landmark-man.  And  this  is  one  among 
the  many  symptoms  which  appear  in  this 
work  and  its  circulation,  portending,  not 
that  rapid  spread  of  Immersionism,  and  new 
access  of  successful  activity,  which  some 
Presbyterians  seem  to  anticipate,  but  ap- 
proaching confusion  and  defeat.  These  ex- 
travagances of  denominational  pride  and 
zeal  are  rather  the  indications  of  dissatis- 
faction, conscious  failure,  and  internal  dis- 
order, than  of  secure  strength.  uPride 
goeth  before  destruction,  and  a  haughty 
spirit  before  a  fall." 

In  conclusion,  we  have  only  to  say  that 
the  reprobation  which  has  been  candidly 
expressed  in  this  Review,  is  aimed,  not  at 
the  Immersionist  denomination,  but  at  those 
individuals  in  it,  who  discredit  and  injure  it, 
by  odious  sentiments  or  acts.  We  repeat, 
that  for  that  church,  we  desire  to  express 
only  Christian  respect.  If  in  any  thing  we 
are  compelled  to  disapprove  their  denomi- 
national action,  we  would  wish  to  utter  that 
disapproval  in  the  language  of  oaoderatioa 


154        REVIEW   OF   THEODOSIA  EARftESf. 

and  peace.  Many  of  its  members,  whom 
we  have  the  privilege  to  know,  we  honor  for 
their  orthodoxy  and  piety,  and  for  a  spirit 
more  generous  than  their  technical  creed. 
Doubtless  there  are  multitudes  of  such. 

We  have,  as  we  conceive  justly,  objected 
to  the  anonymous  and  irresponsible  charac- 
ter of  the  book  criticised.  It  is  but  right 
therefore  that  we  should  add;  if  any  person 
feels  aggrieved  by  those  criticisms,  the  Edi* 
tors  of  the  Central  Presbyterian  are  au- 
thorized to  inform  him  who  is  to  be  held 
responsible  therefor.  While  we  do  not  af- 
firm that  everything  in  temper,  manner,  and 
expression,  has  been  what  it  should  be,  we 
hold  ourselves  ready  to  maintain  the  facts 
and  arguments  asserted  in  the  above  pages, 
"against  all  comers." 


